| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 17:31:13 |
| Message-ID: | 2099.1292607073@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/17/2010 12:15 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> The reason for this is bigger space for possible
>> future features related to FOREACH loop.
> So what you're saying is we need to allow ugliness now so we can have
> more ugliness in future? I don't find that a convincing argument. I
> share the dislike for this syntax.
Well, we did beat up Pavel over trying to shoehorn this facility into
the existing FOR syntax, so I can hardly blame him for thinking this
way. The question is whether we're willing to assume that FOREACH will
be limited to iterating over arrays, meaning we'll be stuck with
inventing yet another initial keyword if some other fundamentally
different concept comes along. Right at the moment I can't think of
any plausible candidates, but ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-12-17 17:35:28 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 17:26:50 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |