Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Still, it looks like it would be relatively easy to suppress evaluation
> > of backticked arguments once we recognize that the backslash command has
> > failed, and I would say that that's a reasonable change to make on the
> > principle of least surprise.
>
> On looking at this further, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea for
> a failed backslash command to cause the rest of the input line to be
> discarded. In the existing coding, if we find another backslash we'll
> try to execute another backslash command, but that seems rather
> considerably likely to be the Wrong Thing instead of the Right Thing.
Tom, would you show an example of the change in behavior? I didn't
understand the details.
--
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, Pennsylvania 19073
