Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1296573076.16066.6.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested
in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2011-01-31 at 21:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. The SQL standard has the <method invocation> clause that appears to allow: ...something.column.method(args) Good luck finding out how to interpret the dots, but it's specified somewhere. It'd be kind of nice as a syntax and namespacing alternative, actually, but figuring out the compatibility problems would be a headache. > Another possibility is > > foo->bar(baz) This is in the SQL standard under <attribute or method reference>, but it requires the left side to be of a reference type, which is something that we don't have.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: