"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.
regards, tom lane
