| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Date: | 2004-01-26 00:21:08 |
| Message-ID: | 29456.1075076468@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Of course it's ambiguous. Just as f(a,b) is ambiguous in C. It could
> mean call f with two arguments, or it could mean call f with the
> result of the expression "a,b". It's "fixed" by just declaring ","
> special inside function calls. If you want to use the operator in the
> function call you have to use an extra set of parentheses.
This doesn't apply very well to Postgres, though. For us ',' is not a
legal operator name anywhere. We used to have some conflicts between
punctuation and operator names --- at one point, there were actually
standard operators named ';' and ':' if you can believe that. We got
rid of those cases because of the amount of pain they caused, and I'm
not eager to introduce a new one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shachar Shemesh | 2004-01-26 00:48:12 | Tom lane - your email server is broken |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-01-25 23:42:20 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |