On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to > > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4. > > I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward > compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y > isn't enough reason. I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries. I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax. > > But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax. Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
-- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
