Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBHrBPu7ugb560UyouX4Qi84c2jXOz7mMjhvs4JyWGrDQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references ("Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references
Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
čt 6. 1. 2022 v 16:59 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 15:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:>>čt 6. 1. 2022 v 14:28 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> napsal:>>How about using the existing reserved keyword "in" followed by "." (dot) and then the function parameter name?>>>>This idea is based on the assumption "in." would always be a syntax error everywhere in both SQL and PL/pgSQL,>>so if we would introduce such a syntax, no existing code could be affected, except currently invalid code.>>>>I wouldn't mind using "in." to refer to IN/OUT/INOUT parameters and not only IN ones, it's a minor confusion that could be >>explained in the docs.>>You are right, in.outvar looks messy.I think you misunderstood what I meant, I suggested "in.outvar" would actually be OK.
I understand well, and I don't think it's nice.
Are there some similar features in other programming languages?
> Moreover, maybe the SQL parser can have a problem with it.How could the SQL parser have a problem with it, if "in" is currently never followed by "." (dot)?Not an expert in the SQL parser, trying to understand why it would be a problem.
you can check it. It is true, so IN is usually followed by "(", but until check I am not able to say if there will be an unwanted shift or collision or not.
Regards
Pavel
/Joel
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: