On 5/17/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards@gmail.com> writes:
> >> (No, I'm not particularly in favor of the BY feature mentioned upthread,
> >> either.)
>
> > mmm... and why is that?
>
> Essentially because it's not in the upstream language. Oracle could
> come out with the same feature next week, only they use STEP or some
> other syntax for it, and then we'd have a mess on our hands. If the
> feature were sufficiently compelling use-wise then I'd be willing to
> risk that, but it doesn't seem to me to be more than a marginal
> notational improvement.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
good point... just one comment, if you disallow the ability to modify
the loop variable the BY clause won't be a "notational" improvement
anymore (but it still will be a marginal one, must admit)... so i
think that the painless path is to do nothing at all...
no BY clause, no disallow the ability to modify the loop variable...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning." Richard Cook