On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a third behavior which is almost the first one. And it's the one
> > > I use for function matching in the package diffs I made oh so long ago.
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > You look in the first namespace for all candidates. If one matches, you
> > > use it. If two or more match, you throw the error we throw now. If none
> > > match, you move on to the next namespace and repeat the search there.
> >
> > That's even more strongly towards earlier namespaces than my suggestion.
> > How do you define match? If you allow coercions, then the
> > plus(int8, int8) in my schema would be prefered over better (possibly
> > exact) matches in the system schema which may not be what you want.
>
> True. But:
>
> 1) How often are you going to make routines with names that duplicate
> those in the system schema, when you don't want them to be used?
Sure, you want them used when the arguments match, but what about when
they don't exactly?
If the system schema has foo(integer) and in my schema I make a new type
and then make a type(integer) and foo(type), when I call foo(1), do I
really mean do a coersion to my type and call foo(type)?