| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Date: | 2004-01-25 19:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0401252015580.30205-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 Jan 2004, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > foo (x => 13, y => 42)
> > >
>
> Is it really necessary to steal it?
Yes, it is necessary since the arguments to a function are just
expressions. If you do not the above would be ambigious and there is no
clean way to fix that. Say that => is an operator returning a boolean,
then the above could either be the function foo called with x=13 and y=42
or the function foo called with two booleans.
We could of course make up some other syntax that does not involve => but
then you loose compability with oracle.
I've not checked if there is anything similar in the sql2003 draft yet.
I will do that of course. If someone has information about that, please
speak up.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-25 19:54:12 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-01-25 17:38:28 | Re: Named arguments in function calls |