Re: DO ... RETURNING

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> 2013/6/11 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
>> > And this still has next-to-nothing to do with the specific proposal that
>> > was put forward.
>> >
>> > I'd like actual procedures too, but it's a completely different and
>> > distinct thing from making DO blocks able to return something.
>>
>> I think so it is related - we talk about future form of DO statement -
>> or about future form of server side scripting.
>
> I don't believe there's any intent to ever have DO used for stored
> procedures. Not only are stored procedures deserving of their own
> top-level command (eg: CALL, as has been discussed before..), but I
> believe they would necessairly have different enough semantics that
> shoe-horning them into DO would end up breaking backwards compatibility.

I was not arguing to shoe-horn them into DO, but rather that the
proposal is shoe-horning into DO what should be in CALL (but I'm
having second thoughts about that -- CALL AFAIK can't do in-line code
blocks).

merlin