On 2013-09-14 23:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> A some languages has a generic PRAGMA keyword. So I would be much more
> happy with something like
>
> PRAGMA Assert(found);
>
> It is much more close to ADA, and it allows a reuse of new keyword for any
> other usage in future (your proposal is too simply, without possibility
> open new doors in future). And we can define a some standard predefined
> asserts too - like Assert, AssertNotNull, AssertNotEmpty, ...
I don't see why e.g. PRAGMA AssertNotEmpty(foo); would be better than
ASSERT NotEmpty(foo); and the NotNull version is even sillier
considering the expression is arbitrary SQL, and we'd have to do all
kinds of different versions or people would be disappointed (AssertNull,
AssertNotNull, AssertExists, AssertNotExists, etc.).
I see what you're trying to do, but I don't think crippling new features
just because we might do something similar at some point is a good idea. I'm guessing this is what happened with the
row_countsyntax, which
made the feature an absolute nightmare to use.
> other issue - A asserts macros has one or two parameters usually. You
> should to support two params assert (with message).
That I think is worth looking into.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
