On Sun, 2008-08-17 at 18:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Actually the most "natural" syntax to me is just f(name=value) similar > > to how UPDATE does it. It has the added benefit of _not_ forcing us to > > make a operator reserved (AFAIK "=" can't be used to define new ops) > > The problem with this is that > > SELECT foo(a = b) > > ...is already valid syntax.
uups, completely forgot dual use of = for both assignment and comparison. > It means compare a with b and pass the > resulting boolean to foo. I'm almost positive that changing this > would break all kinds of existing code (and probably create a lot of > grammar problems too). It's not an issue with SET because in that > case the "name=" part of the syntax is required rather than optional. Maybe we can do without any "keyword arguments" or "labeled function params" if we define a way to construct records in-place. something like RECORD( 'Zdanek'::text AS name, 22::int AS age); -- like SELECT or RECORD( name 'Zdanek'::text, age 22::int); -- like CREATE TABLE/TYPE or RECORD(name, age) .... from sometable; -- get values & types from table ? Then we could pass these records to any PL for processing with minimal confusion to programmer, and without introducing new concepts like "variadic argument position labels" ------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
