Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But the reasons that applied to PL/Java (masses of non-C code was the
> main one) probably don't apply in these 2 cases.

I don't think it's the amount of non-C code; it's the amount of code 
that no one understands.  Plus, an argument *for* inclusion was build 
farm coverage, which I understand will be solved in a different way, 
applicable to all external modules.  Another argument was buzzword 
compliance, which doesn't apply to these two new candidates.  So in 
summary, while I have not seen any valid reason for these inclusions, 
there continue to be some against it.

Peter Eisentraut

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to