Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
...

> I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
> single-argument range constructors.

We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward. I'm
hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly more
verbose:
 numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');

But I don't have any particularly good ideas to save them, either.

Regarding the zero-argument (empty) constructors, I'd be fine removing
them. They don't seem to cause problems, but the utility is also very
minor.

Regards,Jeff Davis