| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dollar Quoting doc patch--resend. |
| Date: | 2004-05-06 03:45:36 |
| Message-ID: | D5856104-9F0F-11D8-BE4C-000A95AB279E@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On 5-May-04, at 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I disagree. I think swiching between single quote and $$ based on the
> content is just too confusing. I would just use $$ in all cases unless
> $$ appears in the function (which should be rare), in which case I
> would
> use $quote$ or something generic.
Well, the function definition in CREATE FUNCTION is a string literal
like any other. Based on the reasoning above, would you argue for using
$$ for every other string literal in the documentation rather than
single quotes? If not, then we're not being consistent anyway, so I
don't find the argument very convincing.
Why not use whatever quoting mechanism is clearest for a particular
example? In some cases that will be single-quotes, in others it will be
dollar quoting via $$, and in still others it will be dollar quoting
via $tag$
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-06 04:41:37 | Re: Dollar Quoting doc patch--resend. |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-05-06 03:39:17 | Re: Dollar Quoting doc patch--resend. |