> The whole thing would make a lot more sense given a credible design > for error handling that keeps both languages happy.
Well, getting so that we can at least compile in both systems would certainly increase the chances of somebody being willing to work on such a design. And if nobody ever does, then at least people who want to fork and do research projects based on PostgreSQL will have slightly less work to do when they want to hack it up. PostgreSQL seems to be a very popular starting point for research work, but a paper I read recently complained about the antiquity of our code base. I prefer to call that backward-compatibility, but at some point people stop thinking of you as backward-compatible and instead think of you as simply backward.
I agree, this was the main reason why we wanted to add support for C++.
Joy, do you have an idea what a *minimally invasive* patch for C++ support would look like? That's certainly the first step here.
Jim -- I believe that the patch will be roughly 6K lines long. The majority of the changes correspond to handling language keyword conflicts.
I must mention that some of the changes I have made preclude the possibility of supporting compilation with both C and C++ compilers. However, I am certain that this limitation can be circumvented with some clever hacking.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
