Re: patch: to_string, to_array functions

On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

>> My first thought is that we should go back to the string_to_array and
>> array_to_string names.  The key reason not to use those names was the
>> conflict with the old functions if you didn't specify a third argument,
>> but where is the advantage of not specifying the third argument?  It
>> would be a lot simpler for people to understand if we just said "the
>> two-argument forms work like this, while the three-argument forms work
>> like that".  This is especially reasonable because the difference in
>> behavior is about nulls in the array, which is exactly what the third
>> argument exists to specify.
>> 
>> [ Sorry for not complaining about this before, but I was on vacation
>> when the previous naming discussion went on. ]
> 
> I can live with that, as long as it's clearly explained in the docs.

+1

David