"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I unlike concept of nested schemats or packages nested in schema. I
don't
> see reason for it. About implementation.. package is more special kind
of
> function for me. But relation between package and function I can create
via
> dot notation in function's name. It's different from nested syntax from
> PL/SQL or ADA. I can easy separate SQL part and non SQL part.
Apparently you're not aware that that syntax is not free for the taking.
The reason people are complaining about this proposal is that currently
foo.bar(...) means function bar in schema foo, and you seem to be
intending to break it.
I understand it. But I don't know better solution. Certainly foo.bar(..) is
ambigous and it can mean both. ANSI SQL don't use packages and Oracle's
package are unsolveable because we have separated parsers. Do you have any
idea, what is good model for it?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
http://messenger.msn.cz/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
