>"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> >>>> x, y := r;
> >>> That strikes me as a really bad idea. It weakens both syntax and
> >>> semantic error checking, to accomplish how much?
> >> Could use PHP-style thingy:
> >> LIST(x, y) := r;
>Actually, ROW(x, y) would be the right spelling per SQL convention.
I am not sure. Allow SQL function on left side of assigment?
> > It's inconsystency :-(.
> > EXECUTE INTO and SELECT INTO use scalar of vectors without anything.
>But in both of those cases there are required leading keywords to give
>you some clue what's supposed to come next. Allowing bare x, y at the
>start of a statement is just a recipe for misconstruing stuff that was
>intended as something else and is one or two punctuation characters shy
Yes. But it's not neccessery or maybe T_SCALAR is keyword by self. And code
of actual patch is very natural (but I have to use
plpgsq_push_back_token()). If I use ROW(...) := syntax, I have to change for
EXECUTE '...' INTO ROW(a,b,c); -- atc.
FOR ROW(a,b,c) IN SELECT
but it's not wrong idea? What do you think?
I don't have objective arguments. It's questions personal preferences. What
I know, some others languages has similar syntax.
1. a,b,c := r; -- C, Python
2. (a,b,c) := r; -- Perl
3. ROW(a,b,c) := r; -- Perl, PHP
>There is also the problem of insufficient semantic cross-checking. A
>record variable doesn't have any very well-defined order of fields, so
>who's to say which value goes to x and which to y? For that matter,
>if I just have
> x := y
>and y is a single-field rowtype, it'd be entirely unclear whether x is
>to receive the row value or the field value.
Valid argument. And there is error in my patch now. Semantics is clean I
think. You can use only declared variables and you know if var. is scalar or
row/record. If x is scalar, then x will contain first field of y. But in
this moment, I have to do implicit retyping - which can be wrong. And ROW(x)
:= y syntax is better.
Oracle syntax don't allow list of variables here. It's argument. I'll change
patch on ROW() := .. for test.
>I don't think this buys anything that is worth the can of worms we'd
>be opening up. The extension for FOR might be worth doing, but not
>the assignment change.
It's depend. In my practic life, I spend time on code
p1 := r.p1; p2 := r.p2; ....
>And, to reiterate Andrew's point, this entire discussion should have
>been held before you wrote a line of code. It is utterly wrong
>to be doing it in pgsql-patches.
I am sorry. I had to use different subject, like EXPERIMENTAL or PROPOSAL
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2005-12-21 07:50:03|
|Subject: Re: status of concurrent VACUUM patch ...|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2005-12-21 04:09:02|
|Subject: Re: PLpgSQL: list of scalars as row for assign stmt, fore|