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]

Reply via email to