On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>Of course, this is as true of functions as it will be of procedures. So half
> >>the functionality that I'm angling for to support with calling named params
> >>could be accomplished within the context of overloading just by extending the
> >>named param patch in 8.0 to cover calling functions/SPs in the format above.
> >
> >
> > We cannot use named parameter notation with functions due to overloading.
> > Disregarding the idea of default values, consider:
> >
> > create function foo(i int, j int) ...
> > create function foo(j int, i int) ...
>
> As I see the world ( it could be wrong ) these two functions above have
> the same signature, so the second declaration shall be not allowed, do you
> want put also the formal parameters names in the function signature ?
> Orrible.
Oops. Thought-o. I meant:
create function foo(i int, j text) ...
create function foo(j text, i int) ...
Their signature is now:
foo(int, text)
foo(text, int)
Which is legal.
Thanks,
Gavin
