From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plpgsql: Is ELSE IF supported or not? |
Date: | 2008-06-26 17:33:02 |
Message-ID: | 18442.1214501582@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
> I don't agree with this statement. In "all procedural languages", or
> probably most, they usually make "ELSE IF" special, in that you don't
> need to close the block twice as per above. The ELSE IF is not actually
> special in PL/SQL, so it is not a special form. The "ELSE" can contain a
> block, which contain any statement, including a nested IF statement. Why
> not describe ELSE WHILE as well based upon the logic that ELSE IF is
> valid? :-)
> Now, if it were to say "an alternative form of ELSEIF is to nest IF
> statement like so:" ...
Yeah, that might be better. I think the reason the text looks the way
it does is that we didn't have ELSEIF/ELSIF to start out with, and what
is now section 38.6.2.3 was originally an example of what you had to do
to work around that lack. I agree that the current presentation is more
confusing than anything else. ISTM documenting ELSEIF and ELSIF as
"separate forms" of IF is a bit over-the-top too.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-26 17:42:49 | Re: Join Removal/ Vertical Partitioning |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-26 17:25:31 | Re: proposal: to_ascii(bytea) |