Bill Studenmund writes:
> Honestly, I do not understand why "global variables" have been such a sore
> point for you.
My point is that the proposed "package support" introduces two features
that are a) independent, and b) already exist, at least in design.
Schemas are already planned as a namespace mechanism. Global variables in
PLs already exist in some PLs. Others can add it if they like. There
aren't any other features introduced by "package support" that I can see
or that you have explicitly pointed out.
So the two questions I ask myself are:
1. Are package namespaces "better" than schemas? The answer to that is
no, because schemas are more standard and more general.
2. Are global variables via packages "better" than the existing setups?
My answer to that is again no, because the existing setups respect
language conventions, maintain the separation of the backend and the
language handlers, and of course they are already there and used.
So as a consequence we have to ask ourselves,
3. Do "packages" add anything more to the table than those two elementary
features? Please educate us.
4. Would it make sense to provide "packages" alongside the existing
mechanisms that accomplish approximately the same thing. That could be
debated, in case we agree that they are approximately the same thing.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter