On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll propose a new kind of functions (only position parameter's > function). My idea is simple - for functions with this mark the mixed > and named notation is blocked. But these functions can have a > parameter names - and these names can be passed to function. So there > is possible have a > > xslt_process function with current behave - third argument has not > label, and new variadic version like > > xslt_process(..,.., param_name1 = 'v1', param_name2 = 'v2', > param_name3 = 'v3', ...) > > an implementation of this functionality can be very simple, and we can > use this for xslt_process in 9.1
Why wouldn't we just pass two text arrays to this function and be done with it? Custom syntax is all well and good when you're writing these calls by hand, but it's not hard to imagine someone wanting to pass in values stored somewhere else. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
