Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming C++,
> when
> > I write SQL
> > applications I would like to use standard-conforming SQL.
>
> But as soon as the rubber hits the road, not two C or C++ compilers
> are really 100% compatible as are no two SQL implementations.
>
> > For SQL, at the current conformance and compatibility level among DBMS
> > providers in use
> > today, one could rightly say there is no such thing as conforming or
> > portable SQL application
> > in real-world.
>
> A large part of the reason for this is that parts of the SQL spec are
> just plain strange and weird and implementing them gains us little or
> nothing. The SQL spec is far more open to interpretation than the C
> or C++ specs, and has changed a LOT more in the last ten years than
> those as well. It's a moving target in many ways, and while many
> parts of it make perfect sense to be implemented as written, a
> noticeable minority of it doesn't warrant implementation / changes to
> comply.
>
>
I am only talking about conforming syntax for features PostgreSql already
has.
That could gain something, right ?

And there are C/C++ applications that compile on many systems, like
Postgres is, despite the fact that no two C++ compilers are 100% compatible.

Thank you,
Timothy Madden