Re: WIP: default values for function parameters

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Grzegorz Jaskiewicz" <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: default values for function parameters
Date: 2008-12-11 15:11:28
Message-ID: 162867790812110711g3ed039b6j35a97dd853080628@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2008/12/11 Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>:
>>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> In any case, I'm not wedded to using AS for this, and am happy to
>> consider other suggestions. But => isn't acceptable.
>
> How about using a bare equals sign (or the => characters) for
> parameter assignment, but require that the parameter name be prefixed
> with some special character? (My first thought was a dollar sign, but
> that would cause problems in PL/pgSQL, so some other character would
> need to be used.) It seems like that could give the parser enough
> context to consider the operator as parameter assignment, so it
> wouldn't require making it a fully reserved word or preclude other
> uses of the operator.

maybe this combination should be safe

$name => .... or $name -> ...

it's not used everywhere

Pavel

>
> I guess it would preclude the use of whatever character was chosen as
> a prefix operator in the context of a parameter list, however; which
> might be a fatal flaw to the idea.
>
> -Kevin
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2008-12-11 15:11:30 Re: COCOMO & Indians
Previous Message Aidan Van Dyk 2008-12-11 15:09:47 Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code