From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
Date: | 2010-12-17 19:58:12 |
Message-ID: | 4680.1292615892@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Unfortunately, there are likely to be a limited number of such
>>> keywords available. While I agree it's helpful to have a clear
>>> distinction between what FOR does and what FOREACH does, it's wholly
>>> conventional here and won't be obvious without careful reading of the
>>> documentation. If we had FOR and FOREACH and FOREVERY and, uh,
>>> FORGET, it'd quickly become notational soup.
>> All true, but in the absence of any plausible candidate for third or
>> fourth or fifth types of iteration, this objection seems a bit thin.
> Well, Heikki just pointed out one that Oracle supports, so that makes
> at least #3...
If you posit that we might someday wish to support what Oracle is doing
there, it seems to me to be a precedent for using a different first
keyword, not for what you're suggesting. I'm not arguing that we might
want to duplicate Oracle's syntax; only that if it's going to be cited
as a precedent that we consider what it's actually a precedent for.
>> I'm afraid that's only really feasible if you are willing for the second
>> word to be a fully reserved word, so it can be distinguished from a
>> plain variable name in that position.
> What if we cheat and peak ahead an extra token?
plpgsql's parser is rickety enough that I don't have a lot of confidence
in its ability to do things that way. In particular, there's too much
knowledge at the lexer level instead of the grammar --- you'd have to
have a way of keeping the lexer from returning T_DATUM in this one
particular context, even if "element" happened to match some variable.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-17 20:02:42 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-17 19:48:58 | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |