| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, 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>, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-15 10:05:55 |
| Message-ID: | 49462C03.6060007@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Perhaps not, but I have to say, looking at Robert's JSON example:
>
>> SELECT json(r.foo AS foo, r.bar AS bar, r.baz AS baz, r.bletch AS
>> quux) FROM rel r;
>
> I would be pretty confused. It looks exactly like the proposed syntax
> for named parameters. So while syntactically they may never be used
> together, there's a semantic mismatch, IMHO.
In my mind, you just have to think about it hard enough to come to
realize that, when viewed from the right angle, the semantic conflict
might not exist after all. It's a bit tricky, but I think it's possible.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-15 10:07:47 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-15 09:54:26 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |