Re: [REVIEW] Patch for cursor calling with named parameters

On 2011-12-11 16:26, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> On 2011-12-06 17:58, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner<kgrittn(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>> Yeb Havinga<yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I personally tend to believe it doesn't even need to be an error.
>>>> There is no technical reason not to allow it. All the user needs
>>>> to do is make sure that the combination of named parameters and
>>>> the positional ones together are complete and not overlapping.
>>
>>> If there are no objections, I suggest that Yeb implement the mixed
>>> notation for cursor parameters.
>>
>> Hearing no objections -- Yeb, are you OK with doing this, and do you
>> feel this is doable for this CF?
>
> Attach is v6 of the patch, allowing mixed mode and with new test cases
> in the regression tests. One difference with calling functions
> remains: it is allowed to place positional arguments after named
> parameters. Including that would add code, but nothing would be gained.

Forgot to copy regression output to expected - attached v7 fixes that.

-- Yeb