From: Alex P. <pe...@in...> - 2003-03-03 09:42:24
|
> > What about "{1}", "{2}" ... "{n}"? That would handle the seond problem > outlined above, allowing something like FOO='Hey {3}, you can't {1} > record #{2}!', and at use > EXCEPTION FOO('delete', old.rec_id, 'Mike') > This syntax with string-only substitution sounds good for me. Must we enable exceptions like: FOO='Hey {3}, you can't {1} record #{3}!' Should we treat this as a bug or: 'Hey Mike, you can't delete record #Mike!' Should we require precise match for number of exception params and {n} in exception or may replace missing one with empty strings and ignore unneeded? Alex. |