Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:11:42 -0500
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
>> That would surely defeat the whole point of having this. We want to
>> have the same syntax as PL/SQL, not different syntax for the same
>> things.
>>
>
> I'm sorry I thought we were developing PostgreSQL.
>
>
Certainly. But that doesn't mean we should wantonly introduce
incompatibilities with PL/SQL. We have in the past rejected syntax
changes which would have done so - this would hardly be the first time.
In any case, as Pavel points out, Josh's original suggestion that there
would be some ambiguity is wrong, so the discussion seems to me to be moot.
cheers
andrew
