2011/1/29 Stephen Frost :
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> See also
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
>> which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
>> FOREACH does.
>
> Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previous
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> See also
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
> which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
> FOREACH does.
Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previously. I think I
can get behind the i
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
>> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
>> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
>> possibi
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in
2011/1/29 Stephen Frost :
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
>> syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
>> stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
>> PL/SQL. M
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> please, can you look on code that I sent last time?
I'm looking at it now and I still don't like the big set of conditionals
at the beginning which sets things up. I do think the loop is a bit
better, but have you considered factoring out the arr
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
> syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
> stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
> PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a
>
>> I'll try to redesign main cycle.
>
> Thanks,
>
please, can you look on code that I sent last time?
Pavel
> Stephen
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEUEARECAAYFAk1EAJwACgkQrzgMPqB3kig5bACdH0fm8Klh7Dq1GlICV/Z8yEd4
> KQoAlRZEeTrB
2011/1/29 Stephen Frost :
> * Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takah...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
>> >
>> > I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
>>
>> AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an ar
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> FOR keyword - please, look on thread about my proposal FOR-IN-ARRAY
I did, and I still don't agree w/ using FOREACH.
> I work with FOUND variable, because I like a consistent behave with
> FOR statement. When FOUND is true after cycle, you are su
* Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takah...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
> >
> > I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
>
> AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
> FOR var IN ARRAY
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost wrote:
> FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
>
> I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
FOR var IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,5] LOOP ...
And it was the only drawback compared with FOR
2011/1/26 Itagaki Takahiro :
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
>> array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
>> can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
>> arra
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
> array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
> can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
> array_get_slice, because there is high
2011/1/24 Pavel Stehule :
> Hello
>
>>
>>
>>> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
>>> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
>>> loops. I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
>>> number of iterations that wil
Hello
>
>
>> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
>> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
>> loops. I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
>> number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of
2011/1/24 Stephen Frost :
> Pavel,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
>
> Thanks. Reviewing this further-
>
> Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> variation of 'FOR'? What is 'FOUND' set to fol
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Uh oh. You just reopened the can of worms from hell.
Alright.. I'm missing what happened to this suggestion of using:
FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword, for the
same reasons that To
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> > variation of 'FOR'?
>
> Uh oh. You just reopened the can of worms from hell.
hahahaha. Apparently I missed that discus
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Pavel,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
>
> Thanks. Reviewing this further-
>
> Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> variation of 'FOR'
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Thanks. Reviewing this further-
Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation of 'FOR'? What is 'FOUND' set to following this? I realize
that might make
Hello
I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2011/1/20 Stephen Frost :
> Greetings,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:
>
> I've gone through this patch and, in general, it
2011/1/20 Stephen Frost :
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
>>
>> That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
>> CommitFest. Perhaps you me
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
>
> That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
> CommitFest. Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?
I did, ac
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
CommitFest. Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The En
25 matches
Mail list logo
