From: | "Joel Jacobson" <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |
Date: | 2022-01-06 15:58:57 |
Message-ID: | 99319627-9d6c-47bc-801a-0f370f0f32a3@www.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 15:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>čt 6. 1. 2022 v 14:28 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> napsal:
>>How about using the existing reserved keyword "in" followed by "." (dot) and then the function parameter name?
>>
>>This idea is based on the assumption "in." would always be a syntax error everywhere in both SQL and PL/pgSQL,
>>so if we would introduce such a syntax, no existing code could be affected, except currently invalid code.
>>
>>I wouldn't mind using "in." to refer to IN/OUT/INOUT parameters and not only IN ones, it's a minor confusion that could be >>explained in the docs.
>
>You are right, in.outvar looks messy.
I think you misunderstood what I meant, I suggested "in.outvar" would actually be OK.
> Moreover, maybe the SQL parser can have a problem with it.
How could the SQL parser have a problem with it, if "in" is currently never followed by "." (dot)?
Not an expert in the SQL parser, trying to understand why it would be a problem.
/Joel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-01-06 16:10:29 | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |
Previous Message | Jelte Fennema | 2022-01-06 15:58:28 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PQcancel does not use tcp_user_timeout, connect_timeout and keepalive settings |