2010/7/4 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> my syntax is reflecting fact, so these are not true parameters - it's
>> +/- similar to default values of function parameters.
>
> FWIW, that doesn't seem like a positive to me.
>
>> You cannot to
>> write do (a int := $1) $$ ... $$ - because utils statements hasn't
>> have variables.
>
> Yet. I don't particularly want to relax that either, but the syntax of
> this feature shouldn't assume it'll be true forever.
>
> I think it's better to not confuse these things with default parameters,
> so Florian's idea looks better to me.
>
> BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO
> originally. What's changed to alter that decision?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
It just concept - nothing more. And my instinct speak so inline code
block without external parametrization is useless.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
