Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Date
Msg-id 540AD00B.7040205@joh.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
(Forgot to answer to this part)

On 2014-09-06 06:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Your strategy is defensive. 100%. But then I don't understand to your
> resistant  to verbosity. It is one basic stone of Ada design

I've never programmed in Ada, but I don't necessarily see why "more 
verbose" would unconditionally mean "more defensive".

My primary reason for objecting to some of the syntax suggestions that 
have been thrown around previously and during the last couple of days is 
that once you increase verbosity enough, the specialized syntax starts 
to be less and less desirable compared to what you can already do today.  And even that I only try to apply to the
partsof the syntax I find 
 
verbose just for the sake of being verbose, i.e. without any additional 
functionality, disambiguity or clarity.  For example, having something 
like a  CONSTRAINT CHECK (row_count = 1);  is not really significantly 
better than   RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK.  It's better because the 
intent is more clear, and because you don't need a special _OK variable, 
but it still has 90% of the pain of the syntax you can use today.  That 
being the useless verbosity.


.marko



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: SKIP LOCKED DATA (work in progress)