(Forgot to answer to this part)

On 2014-09-06 06:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Your strategy is defensive. 100%. But then I don't understand to your
resistant  to verbosity. It is one basic stone of Ada design


I've never programmed in Ada, but I don't necessarily see why "more verbose" would unconditionally mean "more defensive".

My primary reason for objecting to some of the syntax suggestions that have been thrown around previously and during the last couple of days is that once you increase verbosity enough, the specialized syntax starts to be less and less desirable compared to what you can already do today. And even that I only try to apply to the parts of the syntax I find verbose just for the sake of being verbose, i.e. without any additional functionality, disambiguity or clarity. For example, having something like a CONSTRAINT CHECK (row_count = 1); is not really significantly better than RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK. It's better because the intent is more clear, and because you don't need a special _OK variable, but it still has 90% of the pain of the syntax you can use today. That being the useless verbosity.


.marko


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to