| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity | 
| Date: | 2005-06-23 17:06:42 | 
| Message-ID: | 42BAEC22.1040609@Yahoo.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches | 
On 6/22/2005 1:29 AM, Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The long-term point in my mind is that removing syntactical
>> redundancy always reduces the ability to detect errors or report
>> errors acccurately
> 
> Lexical scoping is unambiguous in a language like PL/PgSQL. Since it is 
> simple to determine whether a given END matches an IF, LOOP, or BEGIN, I 
> don't see how it would reduce our "ability to detect errors or report 
> errors accurately".
> 
>> Consider for example the possibility that Oracle's next release adds
>> some new frammish that can't be duplicated because we chose not to
>> distinguish various forms of "END xxx" ...
> 
> As lexical scoping is still unambiguous, we could actually add a K_LOOP 
> / K_IF token to the input stream, if that would make you happier :) (Of 
> course I'm not suggesting this -- the point is that as far as the parser 
> is concerned, we should have precisely the same information for 
> disambiguating the input as we used to have.)
> 
> BTW, I notice that Oracle actually allows:
> 
> <<label>>
> LOOP
>      -- ...
> END LOOP label;
But what if they decide to allow
LOOP
     -- ...
     IF condition THEN
         EXIT;
END LOOP;
at some point? There you'd get ambiguity.
Jan
> 
> whereas we don't allow the optional label following END LOOP. Which goes 
> to my general point: this frammish has existed in PL/SQL for a while, 
> but it's not as if people are clamoring for us to implement it. I would 
> wager that most people care about having *equivalent* features to 
> PL/SQL, not exactly identical syntax. For example, the lack of 
> autonomous transactions is something people have asked for in the past, 
> because it *does* make porting PL/SQL applications more difficult. I 
> can't see anyone losing any sleep because we are slightly more relaxed 
> about the input we accept.
> 
> -Neil
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-23 17:06:46 | Re: The contrib hit list | 
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-23 17:06:24 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Removing Kerberos 4 | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-23 17:16:01 | Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-23 15:15:39 | Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support |