| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | T(dot)R(dot)Missner(at)Level3(dot)com, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, doug(at)wireboard(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: trigger compile problem |
| Date: | 2001-09-29 18:15:15 |
| Message-ID: | 200109291815.f8TIFFb21998@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> I've always wondered why plpgsql is so nitpickingly insistent on finding
> >> a semicolon after the last END. Would anyone object if I made the
> >> last semi optional?
>
> > C requires the termination. I assume our languages should too.
>
> I don't think that analogy holds water at all, since plpgsql is not
> C and doesn't emulate C's syntax very closely. Even if you accept
> the analogy, what we're discussing here is a semicolon after the end
> of a function body, which C does not expect you to write --- so the
> analogy favors omitting it, not requiring it.
Yes, good point. Also, the end of the string is clearly marking the
_end_, so of like EOF.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-09-29 18:22:36 | Re: Dynamic Query problem |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-09-29 18:13:08 | Re: showing also value '0' with aggregate count() |