On 11/18/2014 04:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2014-11-18 21:27 GMT+01:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net
> <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>>:
>
>
> On 11/18/2014 02:53 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> On 11/18/14, 9:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Frankly, I find this whole proposal, and all the suggested
> alternatives, somewhat ill-conceived. PLPGSQL is a wordy
> language. If you want something more terse, use something
> else. Adding these sorts of syntactic sugar warts onto the
> language doesn't seem like a terribly good way to proceed.
>
>
> Such as?
>
> The enormous advantage of plpgsql is how easy it is to run
> SQL. Every other PL I've looked at makes that WAY harder. And
> that's assuming you're in an environment where you can install
> another PL.
>
> And honestly, I've never really found plpgsql to be terribly
> wordy except in a few cases ("assert" being one of them). My
> general experience has been that when I'm doing an IF (other
> than assert), I'm doing multiple things in the IF block, so
> it's really not that big a deal.
>
>
>
> I frequently write one-statement bodies of IF statements. To me
> that's not a big deal either :-)
>
>
> anybody did it, but it doesn't need so it is perfect :) I understand
> well to Jim' feeling.
>
> I am looking to Ada 2005 language ... a design of RAISE WITH shows so
> RAISE statement is extensible in Ada too. Sure - we can live without
> it, but I don't think so we do some wrong with introduction RAISE WHEN
> and I am sure, so a live with this feature can be more fun for
> someone, who intensive use this pattern.
>
>
(drags out recently purchased copy of Barnes "Ada 2012")
Ada's
RAISE exception_name WITH "string";
is more or less the equivalent of our
RAISE level 'format_string';
So I don't think there's much analogy there.
I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it does seem to me very
largely unnecessary.
cheers
andrew
