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

2011/2/1 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> It would help if you were a bit more specific.  Do you mean you want
>>> to write something like foo.bar(baz) and have that mean call the bar
>>> method of foo and pass it baz as an argument?
>>
>>> If so, that'd certainly be possible to implement for purposes of a
>>> college course, if you're so inclined - after all it's free software -
>>> but we'd probably not make such a change to core PG, because right now
>>> that would mean call the function bar in schema baz and pass it foo as
>>> an argument.  We try not to break people's code to when adding
>>> nonstandard features.
>>
>> 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.  Another possibility is
>>
>>        foo->bar(baz)
>>
>> I agree with Robert's opinion that it'd be unlikely the project would
>> accept such a patch into core, but if you're mainly interested in it
>> for research purposes that needn't deter you.
>
> Using an arrow definitely seems less problematic than using a dot.
> Dot means too many things already.

sure, but it's out of standard :(

Pavel

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>