Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought llast() and length() were going away too?
> For llast(), I decided to keep it around: it is nicely symmetric
> with linitial(), and it makes any code that actually needs the last
> value in a list significantly more readable. Since it's a macro
> there's no runtime cost.
> I had thought about keeping length() around, but on second thought I
> don't see why we ought to. I'll replace it with list_length() and
> post an updated patch.
Okay, that works for me.
regards, tom lane