On May 16, 2006, at 20:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Um ... design sanity and consistency, maybe? Not that I think PL/SQL
> is any paragon of those virtues, but surely "we'll invent any feature
> we feel like whether it's sane or not" is not a recipe for a
> maintainable language.
Yes, sanity is important, I agree.
> (No, I'm not particularly in favor of the BY feature mentioned
> upthread,
> either.)
Pity. I thought it was a good idea.
Best,
David
