Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On sön, 2009-08-16 at 00:04 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> SQL is not Lisp. Simple is good. I didn't think Peter was really very
>> serious.
> Well, I don't know if we really need to call it "lambda", but I fully
> expect to be able to use these "ad hoc functions" as part of other
> expressions.
Why would you expect that? To be used in an expression, you'd also need
decoration to tell the function argument types, result type, volatility
properties, etc etc (your proposed lambda notation is far too
simplistic). I think you're moving the goalposts to a point where we'd
need ANOTHER, simpler, mechanism to accomplish the original intent.
And frankly, all of the user demand I've heard is for the latter not
the former. By the time you get into specifying function properties
you might as well just create a function.
regards, tom lane
