Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > OK, patch attached. It was actually easier than I thought. We have to
> > > decide if we are going to remove the old syntax in 7.4.
> >
> > I'd say "no". There's no compelling reason to break backward
> > compatibility here --- certainly a couple more productions in gram.y
> > isn't enough reason.
> I agree here. Why intentionally break something that doesn't violate
> standards, and would cause people to have to look at all their queries.
> I personally hope y'all do *NOT* remove the old syntax.
> >
> > But I think it'd be sufficient to document only the new syntax.
> Why? If both old and new are acceptable, why not document it?
> (Just curious, I'm not wedded to it).
Well, showing both versions adds confusion for no good reason, it
doesn't promote one over the other, and if we decide to get rid of the
old syntax someday, we can't do it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
