2008/8/24 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/8/23 Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>> Why not just use some standard record syntax, like
>
>> do you thing, so is it simpler?
>
> It's not about being "simpler", it's about pointing out that there are
> ways to do what you need without creating compatibility problems and
> without commandeering syntax that, if we were going to commandeer it,
> would be far better used for named params.
>
> IMHO, the use-case for labeled parameters is simply much too narrow
> to justify giving them special syntax if there is any possible way
> to avoid it. We have now seen a couple of ways to do it without
> new syntax, at the cost of a few more lines inside the called function
> to examine its arguments. But the use-cases you've suggested involve
> functions that are complicated enough that that's not going to be any
> big deal.
>
> So I feel that the proposal for labeled parameters as such is dead
> in the water, and that the only usefulness this thread has had is
> (re-) exploring the syntactic alternatives available for named params.
I feel it too.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
