| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 15:33:57 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070812090733o2c45668aud66b26860910847a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> it means, so we must not implement any new operator?
If the operator were called %(at)==+!, I think you could make a good
argument that no one else is likely using that for anything.
Surely the same cannot be said of =>
Of course, %(at)==+! is not a very convenient name for an operator, but
that's exactly the point: there are only a limited number of good,
short names for operators, and => must be near the top of that list.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-09 15:34:21 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-12-09 15:28:59 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |