Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)

Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
>     What we have now (at least  what  works  properly)  are  only
>     scalar  return  values  from  functions.  And I don't see the
>     point of a row return, so I think we don't need them.

That's what I mant by the OTOH below

> >
> > (The last example is not ansi and does not work currently),
> >
> > OTOH, these exaples would jus be redundant cases for your 5th case.
> >
> > OTOOH, all the functions returning less than a set of rows are
> > redundadnt cases of the functions that do ;)
> 
>     But please don't forget that it isn't enough  to  write  down
>     the syntax and specify the behaviour with some english words.
>     We must define the behaviour in C too, and in  that  language
>     it's  a  little  more  than  a  redundant  case of something,
>     because we don't have that something.

Yes, that's the hard part.

---------
Hannu