On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being
> >> > able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)')
> >> > really worth it? I kind of doubt that...
> >>
> >> You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the
> >> clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to
> >> provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on.
> >
> > That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in
> > range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former
> > excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing.
> >
> > We could go back to having different constructor names for different
> > inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the
> > awkwardness of typing (and seeing) '[]'.
>
> The cure seems worse than the disease. What is so bad about '[]'?
Nothing's bad about '[]' per se. What's better, but possibly out of
the reach of our current lexing and parsing system, would be things
like:
[1::int, 10)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate