On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 09:23:17AM -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:41:49AM +1000, Neil Conway wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >But this doesn't make it easier to use - users don't just include those who > > >write it. The antecedent language of these, Ada, from which this syntax > > >comes, was explicitly designed to be reader-friendly as opposed to > > >writer-friendly, and this is a part of that. > > > > IMHO it is just needless verbiage that makes programs both harder to > > read *and* harder to write, albeit marginally so. I think there is a > > reason why Ada-style block terminators are in the minority among > > block-structured languages :) > > > > But obviously this is a matter of taste -- does anyone else like or > > dislike the current syntax? > > "Like" is a bit strong. But it does make functions written in it easier > to read. And given that the primary debugging methodolofy for pl/pgsql > is "Look at it hard and see what might be incorrect" I can't see that > as a bad thing.
Yeah, while we don't have good debugging support in pl/pgsql we shouldn't be making it harder to read. (FWIW, yes, I think it's useful for those keywords to be required when you have to look at homongous functions.) -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>) "No renuncies a nada. No te aferres a nada." ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
