On 02/09/14 21:25, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>
> On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>
>> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
>> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at
>> least a standard(ish) language.
> So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
> better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective
> users will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard
> approved, rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not
> embodied by the ISO. No doubt ^_^
>
Well there is the risk that by randomly adding new syntax to PL/pgSQL we
turn it in a bizarre and quirky *non standard* language. Part of the
attraction of PL/pgsql is that it is Ada like - if we break that too
much then...well...that would be bad. So I think a careful balance is
needed, to add new features that keep the spirit of the original language.
Regards
Mark
