On 17 July 2010 04:52, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/7/16 Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>:
>> Also, if we're going to make the function non-strict, we need to
>> consider how to respond when the user specifies NULL for the other
>> arguments. If the field separator is NULL, bearing in mind that NULL
>> can't match any string, I would expect that to_array would return the
>> undivided string as a single array element, and that to_string would
>> throw an error:
>>
>
> ok, it has a sense.
>
> other question is empty string as separator - but I think, it can has
> same behave like string_to_array and array_to_string functions.
>
Agreed. Those behaviours seem sensible.
>> If the first argument is NULL for either function, I think it would be
>> reasonable to return NULL. But I could be convinced that we should
>> throw an error in that case too.
>>
>
> I agree - I prefer a NULL
>
> Thank You very much
No worries; I will await a revised patch from you which updates these
behaviours -- please incorporate the doc/comment changes I posted
earlier -- I will then do a further review before handing off to a
committer.
Cheers,
BJ