|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>> If I can find some simple mnemonic for "," vs "@" for being executed vs
>> ignored, I could live with that, but nothing obvious comes to my mind.
> @in't gonna execute it?
Hmmm... This is too much of an Americanism, IMHO.
> I'm here all week, try the veal.
Sorry, syntax error, you have lost me. Some googling suggests a reference
to post WW2 "lounge entertainers", probably in the USA. I also do not
understand why this would mean "yes".
> I'd be fine with either of these on aesthetic grounds. On technical
> grounds, 'z' is harder to show.
I'm not sure that this valid technical point should be a good reason for
guiding what feedback should be provided to the user, but it makes it
simpler to choose two states:-)
For three states with more culturally neutral mnemonics, I thought of:
? for f (waiting for a true answer...)
. for z (waiting for the end of the sentence, i.e. endif)
& for t (no real mnemonic)
For two states:
* for being executed (beware, it is ***important***)
/ for not (under the hood, and it is opposed to *)
Otherwise I still like "?[tfz]", but it is two characters long.
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2017-02-14 07:45:01||Re: pg_waldump's inclusion of backend headers is a mess|
|Previous Message||Iwata, Aya||2017-02-14 07:27:56||Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq|