On 5 April 2013 07:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Well, if we're going to take that hard a line on it, then we can't
> change anything about array data storage or the existing functions'
> behavior; which leaves us with either doing nothing at all, or
> inventing new functions that have saner behavior while leaving the
> old ones in place.
And then we are in the awkward position of trying to explain the
differences in behaviour between the old and new functions ...
presumably with a dash of "for historical reasons" and a sprinkling of
"to preserve compatibility" in every other paragraph.
The other suggestion that had been tossed around elsewhere upthread
was inventing a new type that serves the demand for a straightforward
mutable list, which has exactly one dimension, and which may be
sensibly empty. Those few who are interested in dimensions >= 2 could
keep on using "arrays", with all their backwards-compatible silliness
intact, and everybody else could migrate to "lists" at their leisure.
I don't hate the latter idea from a user perspective, but from a
developer perspective I suspect there are valid objections to be made.
Cheers,
BJ