Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nick Rudnick <joerg(dot)rudnick(at)t-online(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
Date: 2011-02-01 15:11:16
Message-ID: 1296573076.16066.6.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On mån, 2011-01-31 at 21:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> You would probably have better luck shoehorning in such a feature if the
> syntax looked like this:
> 
> 	(foo).bar(baz)
> 
> foo being a value of some type that has methods, and bar being a method
> name.

The SQL standard has the <method invocation> clause that appears to
allow:

    ...something.column.method(args)

Good luck finding out how to interpret the dots, but it's specified
somewhere.

It'd be kind of nice as a syntax and namespacing alternative, actually,
but figuring out the compatibility problems would be a headache.

>   Another possibility is
> 
> 	foo->bar(baz)

This is in the SQL standard under <attribute or method reference>, but
it requires the left side to be of a reference type, which is something
that we don't have.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-01 15:14:49
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
Previous:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2011-02-01 15:02:52
Subject: Re: Named restore points

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group