2011/2/1 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> It would help if you were a bit more specific. Do you mean you want >>> to write something like foo.bar(baz) and have that mean call the bar >>> method of foo and pass it baz as an argument? >> >>> If so, that'd certainly be possible to implement for purposes of a >>> college course, if you're so inclined - after all it's free software - >>> but we'd probably not make such a change to core PG, because right now >>> that would mean call the function bar in schema baz and pass it foo as >>> an argument. We try not to break people's code to when adding >>> nonstandard features. >> >> You would probably have better luck shoehorning in such a feature if the >> syntax looked like this: >> >> (foo).bar(baz) >> >> foo being a value of some type that has methods, and bar being a method >> name. Another possibility is >> >> foo->bar(baz) >> >> I agree with Robert's opinion that it'd be unlikely the project would >> accept such a patch into core, but if you're mainly interested in it >> for research purposes that needn't deter you. > > Using an arrow definitely seems less problematic than using a dot. > Dot means too many things already.
sure, but it's out of standard :( Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
