On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> It would help if you were a bit more specific. Do you mean you want >> to write something like foo.bar(baz) and have that mean call the bar >> method of foo and pass it baz as an argument? > >> If so, that'd certainly be possible to implement for purposes of a >> college course, if you're so inclined - after all it's free software - >> but we'd probably not make such a change to core PG, because right now >> that would mean call the function bar in schema baz and pass it foo as >> an argument. We try not to break people's code to when adding >> nonstandard features. > > You would probably have better luck shoehorning in such a feature if the > syntax looked like this: > > (foo).bar(baz) > > foo being a value of some type that has methods, and bar being a method > name. Another possibility is > > foo->bar(baz) > > I agree with Robert's opinion that it'd be unlikely the project would > accept such a patch into core, but if you're mainly interested in it > for research purposes that needn't deter you.
Using an arrow definitely seems less problematic than using a dot. Dot means too many things already. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
