| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-13 16:19:08 |
| Message-ID: | 26702.1229185148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, after looking at the precedent of XMLELEMENT, it's hard to
>> deny that if the SQL committee ever chose to standardize named parameters,
>> AS is what they would use. The chances that ":" would become the
>> standard are negligible --- that's not the sort of syntax they like
>> to standardize.
> Any chance that both "AS" and ":" could be supported, so that it's at
> the discretion of the user?
I'm sure it's technically possible, but I see no redeeming social value
in it ... we should pick one and quit repainting the bike shed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-12-13 16:25:33 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-12-13 16:12:23 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |