* Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takah...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
FOR var
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
FOR keyword - please, look on thread about my proposal FOR-IN-ARRAY
I did, and I still don't agree w/ using FOREACH.
I work with FOUND variable, because I like a consistent behave with
FOR statement. When FOUND is true after cycle, you are
2011/1/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takah...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
AFAIR, the syntax
I'll try to redesign main cycle.
Thanks,
please, can you look on code that I sent last time?
Pavel
Stephen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEUEARECAAYFAk1EAJwACgkQrzgMPqB3kig5bACdH0fm8Klh7Dq1GlICV/Z8yEd4
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
please, can you look on code that I sent last time?
I'm looking at it now and I still don't like the big set of conditionals
at the beginning which sets things up. I do think the loop is a bit
better, but have you considered factoring out the
2011/1/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
possibility for enhancing plpgsql in
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
See also
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
FOREACH does.
Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previously. I think I
can get behind the idea
2011/1/29 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
See also
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
FOREACH does.
Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
FOR var IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,5] LOOP ...
And it was the only drawback
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
array's data. I need a global index for function array_get_isnull. I
can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
array_get_slice,
2011/1/26 Itagaki Takahiro itagaki.takah...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
array's data. I need a global index for function array_get_isnull. I
can't to use a buildin
2011/1/24 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Thanks. Reviewing this further-
Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation of 'FOR'? What is 'FOUND'
Hello
Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
loops. I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
2011/1/24 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hello
Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
loops. I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
number of iterations
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Thanks. Reviewing this further-
Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation of 'FOR'? What is 'FOUND' set to following this? I realize
that might make
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Pavel,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Thanks. Reviewing this further-
Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation of 'FOR'?
Uh oh. You just reopened the can of worms from hell.
hahahaha. Apparently I missed
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
Uh oh. You just reopened the can of worms from hell.
Alright.. I'm missing what happened to this suggestion of using:
FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword, for the
same reasons that
Hello
I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2011/1/20 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
Greetings,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:
I've gone through this patch and, in
2011/1/20 Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
Greetings,
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote:
attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:
I've gone through this patch and, in general, it looks pretty reasonable
to me. There's a number of places where I think additional comments
would be good and maybe
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
CommitFest. Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
CommitFest. Perhaps you mean Waiting on
26 matches
Mail list logo
