From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |
Date: | 2011-10-06 17:46:54 |
Message-ID: | 4509.1317923214@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:
>>> Would it then be added as an alias for := for named function parameters? Or would that come still later?
>> Once we do that, it will be impossible not merely deprecated to use =>
>> as an operator name. I think that has to wait at least another release
>> cycle or two past where we're using it ourselves.
> Okay. I kind of like := so there's no rush AFAIC. :-)
Hmm ... actually, that raises another issue that I'm not sure whether
there's consensus for or not. Are we intending to keep name := value
syntax forever, as an alternative to the standard name => value syntax?
I can't immediately see a reason not to, other than the "it's not
standard" argument.
Because if we *are* going to keep it forever, there's no very good
reason why we shouldn't accept this plpgsql cursor patch now. We'd
just have to remember to extend plpgsql to take => at the same time
we do that for core function calls.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-10-06 17:51:25 | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-10-06 17:39:18 | Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters |