Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)

Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> What we have now (at least what works properly) are only
> scalar return values from functions. And I don't see the
> point of a row return, so I think we don't need them.

That's what I mant by the OTOH below

> >
> > (The last example is not ansi and does not work currently),
> >
> > OTOH, these exaples would jus be redundant cases for your 5th case.
> >
> > OTOOH, all the functions returning less than a set of rows are
> > redundadnt cases of the functions that do ;)
>
> But please don't forget that it isn't enough to write down
> the syntax and specify the behaviour with some english words.
> We must define the behaviour in C too, and in that language
> it's a little more than a redundant case of something,
> because we don't have that something.

Yes, that's the hard part.

---------
Hannu