Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1321980821.23754.6.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I honestly don't know what function names people will pick, and I > don't care. Someone might like singleton(x), which would be > impractical as a built-in because there could be more than one range > type over the same base type, but if the user defines the function > they can pick what's convenient for them. If they use singletons > exceedingly frequently they might even want something really short, > like just(x) or s(x). Or they might say daterange1(x), along the > lines you suggested earlier. For that matter, they might pick daterange(x), as I picked earlier, and run into the same problems. It's a little strange that we allow people to define functions with one argument and the same name as a type if such functions are confusing. This isn't intended as an argument in either direction, just an observation. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: