Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:11:42 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That would surely defeat the whole point of having this. We want to
have the same syntax as PL/SQL, not different syntax for the same
things.
I'm sorry I thought we were developing PostgreSQL.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean we should wantonly introduce
incompatibilities with PL/SQL. We have in the past rejected syntax
changes which would have done so - this would hardly be the first time.
In any case, as Pavel points out, Josh's original suggestion that there
would be some ambiguity is wrong, so the discussion seems to me to be moot.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
