Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters

Tom Lane wrote:

>>On a related note, it would also be nice to have default
>>parameters and some way to say to use them.
>
>
> That is fundamentally not ever going to happen, because it blows
> overloaded-function resolution out of the water: there is no way to
> choose whether "foo(42, 2.5)" matches foo(int, float) or
> foo(int, float, something-with-a-default). Let's try to limit our
> attention to something that might actually work.

C++ manages to solve this problem, although I can't remember the exact
mechanics (and C++ is usually not a good example to follow anyway ;)

How about just disallowing function signatures that cause ambiguity?
i.e. make f(t1,t2,default t3,default t4,..) lay claim to f(t1,t2),
f(t1,t2,t3), f(t1,t2,t3,t4) etc, and creation fails if any of those
signatures are already claimed by another function.

-O