On 02/09/14 15:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
> was "is exactly why we need a new language" and that "All the clumsy
> stuff we cannot fix in plpgsql, can easily be fixed in plpgsql2, with
> the most beautiful syntax we can come up with." But you haven't said HOW
> you propose to fix this one case.
Unfortunately, there is likely to be a (large) variance of opinion
concerning the details. In particular 'beautiful/elegant...'. Err -
these things are mostly in the eye of the beholder. E.g: I might want
this new shiny syntax to be lisp like, as that is beautiful (heh,
kidding - but you should get the idea).
Cheers
Mark
