Re: PL/PgSQL buglet / doc error

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL buglet / doc error
Date: 2002-11-08 00:10:41
Message-ID: 87n0ok7wfy.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On 7 Nov 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> > If you have declared the function to return void, then the expression
> > can be omitted, and will be ignored in any case.
>
> I'm not sure how you translated the above to return is optional. I'd
> read it as the expression portion of the return statement is optional if
> the function returns void. Thus you can say return; for the return
> because the expression is optional.

Woops :-)

There might be a case to be made for actually implementing this (not
requiring a blank RETURN at the end of a function body if the function
doesn't return anything), but the original "bug" is obviously a case
of my misreading the docs.

Sorry for the noise.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-11-08 00:16:18 Re: Outstanding patches
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-11-08 00:03:01 Re: PL/PgSQL buglet / doc error