Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch

2009/9/27 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "However, a named variadic argument can only be called the way shown in
>>> the example above. The VARIADIC keyword must not be specified and a
>>> variadic notation of all arguments is not supported. To use variadic
>>> argument lists you must use positional notation instead."
>>>
>>> What is the intended behavior? I think we should always require VARIADIC
>>> to be specified regardless of using named notation.
>>>
>>
>> maybe we could to support variadic named parameters in future - then
>> using VARIADIC keyword should be necessary - like
>>
>> foo(10 AS p1, 20 AS p1, 30 AS p3) is equalent of
>> foo(VARIADIC ARRAY[10,20] AS p1, 30 AS p3)
>
> Pavel,
>
> This doesn't make sense to me, FWIW.  I don't think we should allow
> parameters to be specified more than once.  It's hard for me to
> imagine how that could be useful.

ook I thing, so this should be little bit unclean too. I though why we
need VARIADIC keyword mandatory for named notation. When we could
specify only unique names, then we could use only one "packed"
variadic parameter - and then VARIADIC keyword isn't necessary.

Is this idea correct? I thing, so there are not problem ensure an
using VARIADIC keyword in this context - but, personally I don't feel,
so there it have to be. But I don't thing, so this is important
(minimally for me) - I'll accept others opinions.

Regards
Pavel


>
>>> I'm still reviewing the code.
>
> Jeff,
>
> When will you be able to post this review?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ...Robert
>