Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like the idea in general, but maybe instead there should be a new
> overloaded version of the existing function names that accepts an
> additional bool argument. Without the argument, behavior would be as it
> is now; with it, you could specify the old or new behavior.
Um, maybe I'm confused about the context, but aren't we talking about C
function names here? No overloading is possible in C ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
