On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 12:10:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Philip Yarra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Without really wishing to volunteer myself: should plpgsql allow using > > parameters with the same name as the columns being referred to within the > > function, provided they're qualified as function_name.parameter? > > No, because that just changes where the ambiguity is. The function name > could easily conflict with a table name. It's a mighty weird-looking > convention anyway --- on what grounds would you argue that the function > is a structure having parameter names as fields?
Is there some other means we could come up with to distinguish between field names and variables? Maybe local.variablename? Oracle has similar issues where you have to use functionname.variablename if there's a conflict, which is a pita. Hence the standard advice of always prefixing your variables with something, but that seems like an ugly hack to me. Of course the real issue is the namespace conflict to begin with, but I have no idea how to solve that.. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
