2014-11-18 21:27 GMT+01:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>:
>
> On 11/18/2014 02:53 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/14, 9:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Frankly, I find this whole proposal, and all the suggested alternatives,
>>> somewhat ill-conceived. PLPGSQL is a wordy language. If you want something
>>> more terse, use something else. Adding these sorts of syntactic sugar warts
>>> onto the language doesn't seem like a terribly good way to proceed.
>>>
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>> The enormous advantage of plpgsql is how easy it is to run SQL. Every
>> other PL I've looked at makes that WAY harder. And that's assuming you're
>> in an environment where you can install another PL.
>>
>> And honestly, I've never really found plpgsql to be terribly wordy except
>> in a few cases ("assert" being one of them). My general experience has been
>> that when I'm doing an IF (other than assert), I'm doing multiple things in
>> the IF block, so it's really not that big a deal.
>>
>>
>
> I frequently write one-statement bodies of IF statements. To me that's not
> a big deal either :-)
>
anybody did it, but it doesn't need so it is perfect :) I understand well
to Jim' feeling.
I am looking to Ada 2005 language ... a design of RAISE WITH shows so RAISE
statement is extensible in Ada too. Sure - we can live without it, but I
don't think so we do some wrong with introduction RAISE WHEN and I am sure,
so a live with this feature can be more fun for someone, who intensive use
this pattern.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
