From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
Date: | 2008-08-15 13:31:09 |
Message-ID: | 162867790808150631ofe63911x5d645cd86b9d8680@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2008/8/15 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> Am Friday, 15. August 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > How is this supposed to interact with argument names ?
>>
>> Yeah, the real problem with this proposal is that it conscripts a syntax
>> that we'll probably want to use in the future for argument-name-based
>> parameter matching. The proposed behavior is not nearly as useful as
>> that would be.
>
> I am not at all convinced about the proposed feature, but is that really a
> syntax we would use for function calls with named parameters?
>
> Random googling shows me that Oracle appears to use a syntax like
>
> name => value
>
I vote this syntax too. So this second feature - named params X labels
for params. Labels for params is related to my work on variadic
functions. Named params needs default param's values - and some more
of changes in parser. Somebody have to solve conflict between params
and expression.
Pavel
> This is actually a feature that I would like to see implemented soonish, so if
> anyone has input on the possible syntax consequences, please comment.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-15 13:59:14 | Re: varchar/name casts |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2008-08-15 13:24:01 | Re: So what about XSLT? |