| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
| Date: | 2005-06-22 15:41:49 |
| Message-ID: | 42B986BD.8060606@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But this doesn't make it easier to use - users don't just include those who
> write it. The antecedent language of these, Ada, from which this syntax
> comes, was explicitly designed to be reader-friendly as opposed to
> writer-friendly, and this is a part of that.
IMHO it is just needless verbiage that makes programs both harder to
read *and* harder to write, albeit marginally so. I think there is a
reason why Ada-style block terminators are in the minority among
block-structured languages :)
But obviously this is a matter of taste -- does anyone else like or
dislike the current syntax?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 15:45:09 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-06-22 15:28:26 | Re: User Quota Implementation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 15:45:09 | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-06-22 11:25:57 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |