From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Function call |
Date: | 2004-01-27 20:24:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0401272121330.30205-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> just a question of what syntax to use. Personally, I would be OK with
> "=>".
That's also what I'm leaning towards now. As Greg suggested, just making
=> a special case as a function parameter. And if one want's to call a
function with an expression containing a => one have to write foo((x=>23))
and not foo(x=>23). That's the current plan I have, I think it's
implementable in a not so ugly way.
If that works out the symbol is not stolen, I would just borrow it a
little when it's the top level of an expression in a function call
position.
--
/Dennis Björklund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Lamb | 2004-01-27 20:27:53 | Re: Mixing threaded and non-threaded |
Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-01-27 20:20:53 | Re: Function call |