>> I guess the question here is whether we want the part-c patch, which
>> removes the historical \setrandom syntax. That's technically no
>> longer needed since we now can use random() as a function directly
>> inside \set commands, but we might want it anyway for backward
>> compatibility.
This patch is indeed a proposal.
>> Anybody have an opinion on that?
>
> +1 for nuking it. That's not worth the trouble maintaining it.
I share Michaël opinion.
Some arguments for removing it:
- \setrandom is syntactically inhomogeneous in the overall syntax, and is now redundant
- switching to the \set syntax is pretty easy, see attached script
- custom scripts are short, they are used by few but advance users, for which updating would not be an issue
- the parsing & execution codes are lengthy, repetitive...
--
Fabien.
