Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway. I'd like to see
> a facility available in our SQL, e.g.
>
> CALL foo();
>
> with the restriction that foo() should be declared to return void. Of
> course, that doesn't remove the keyword requirement as Neil wanted, but
> doing that would probably require a lot more work - we'd have to make
> procedures a whole lot closer to first-class objects.
I agree with this, except that foo() should be a PROCEDURE, not a FUNCTION.
Joe
