Tom Lane wrote: > Jon Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is there a reason not to use here documents? > > The $$FOO proposal I put forward earlier was consciously modeled on > here-documents. We cannot use exactly the shell syntax for > here-documents, though, mainly because we already have meaning assigned > to strings like <<' (<< is already a standard operator, and the ' could > be the start of an ordinary literal). > > I would definitely like to see us adopt a proposal that is like > here-documents to the extent that there's a family of possible > terminator markers and not only one. But we'll have to adjust the > syntax a little bit. If you don't like $$FOO, what else comes to mind?
Couldn't we allow << at the beginning of the line to mean 'here' document? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: 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
