From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: make == as = ? |
Date: | 2004-04-07 09:28:06 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0404071116560.9008@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > =? as != is a synonum for <>, it would make sense.
> >
> > That was never such a terribly good idea, IMHO.
>
> Agreed. Compilers should give errors and not try to work around bad code.
Is it bad code? Not for people who come from a C/C++/Java background.
They are used to operators such as == != % && || !... Some of these
are available from pg, some are not, so at the time it is incoherent.
Also, I would not like == to mean anything but =, as any other meaning
would be quite error prone to users with a C background.
PostgreSQL is really extensible wrt operators, and I'm not that sure
it is so bad an idea to support "C" flavor operators.
> It would be useful with some flag/variable to set that makes pg generate
> varnings for non standard constructs. Unfortunatly there are so many
> things that are non standard, still using != instead of <> could be a
> usable warning.
You can have two policy. Either you're cool and homogeneous, or either
you're strict. At the time, postgreSQL is rather cool in some place:
!= and <>, ~~ and LIKE... and a little bit inhomogeneous.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-04-07 09:34:13 | Re: make == as = ? |
Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-04-07 08:30:31 | Re: make == as = ? |