| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 14:33:36 |
| Message-ID: | 23145.1001774016@sss.pgh.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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-09-29 14:41:44 | Re: Recreating unique index for primary key |
| Previous Message | Masaru Sugawara | 2001-09-29 12:43:04 | Re: sort by percent matched |