* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> > variation of 'FOR'?
>
> Uh oh. You just reopened the can of worms from hell.
hahahaha. Apparently I missed that discussion; also wasn't linked off
the patch. :/ Guess I'll go poke through the archives... Struck me as
obviously wrong to invent something completely new for this, but..
Thanks,
Stephen
