čt 6. 1. 2022 v 16:59 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 15:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>čt 6. 1. 2022 v 14:28 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@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
>
