On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 08:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Larry Rosenman wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to > > > > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4. > > > > > > I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward > > > compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y > > > isn't enough reason. > > I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate > > standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries. > > I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax. > > > > > > But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax. > > > Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it? > > (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it). > > Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason, it > doesn't promote one over the other, and if we decide to get rid of the > old syntax someday, we can't do it. Why the h*ll are you insistent on REMOVING the old syntax?
I see no good reason to remove it, and per TGL, the addition of the couple(few?) rules in the grammar is negligible. I sort of understand not documenting it, but please **DO NOT** remove the old syntax without a damn good reason. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
