Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

On 2011-12-06 17:58, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Kevin Grittner<kgrittn(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> I personally tend to believe it doesn't even need to be an error.
>>> There is no technical reason not to allow it. All the user needs
>>> to do is make sure that the combination of named parameters and
>>> the positional ones together are complete and not overlapping.
>
>> If there are no objections, I suggest that Yeb implement the mixed
>> notation for cursor parameters.
>
> Hearing no objections -- Yeb, are you OK with doing this, and do you
> feel this is doable for this CF?

Attach is v6 of the patch, allowing mixed mode and with new test cases
in the regression tests. One difference with calling functions remains:
it is allowed to place positional arguments after named parameters.
Including that would add code, but nothing would be gained.

regards,
Yeb Havinga