Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> This proposal strikes me as half-baked. Either we need proper and full
>> support for variadic functions, or we don't, but I don't think we need
>> syntactic sugar like the above (or maybe in this case it's really
>> syntactic saccharine).
>>
>
> What would you consider "proper and full support"?
>
>
>
I don't know. But this doesn't feel like it.
I'm not even sure it's possible to so in any sane way alongside overloading.
cheers
andrew