On 25 Jan 2004, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > foo (x => 13, y => 42)
> > >
> Is it really necessary to steal it?
Yes, it is necessary since the arguments to a function are just
expressions. If you do not the above would be ambigious and there is no
clean way to fix that. Say that => is an operator returning a boolean,
then the above could either be the function foo called with x=13 and y=42
or the function foo called with two booleans.
We could of course make up some other syntax that does not involve => but
then you loose compability with oracle.
I've not checked if there is anything similar in the sql2003 draft yet.
I will do that of course. If someone has information about that, please
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-01-25 19:54:12|
|Subject: Re: Named arguments in function calls |
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2004-01-25 17:38:28|
|Subject: Re: Named arguments in function calls|