Re: type conversion discussion
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: type conversion discussion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005171921050.349-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: type conversion discussion (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: type conversion discussion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > > Let's say you have a function foo(float8, int2) and one foo(float4, int8) > > and you call it with (you guessed it) float4 and int2. Which do you take? > > A good point; I wouldn't object to returning an error if we determine > that there are multiple equally-good possibilities. But, again, the > sticky question is equally good according to what metric? IMO that metric should be "existance". Anything else is bound to be non-obvious. Surely some breadth-first or depth-first search through the imaginary casting tree would yield reasonable results, but it's still confusing. I don't see any good reasons why one would have such ambiguously overloaded functions, though I'd be very interested to see one. In fact one might consider preventing *creation* of such setups. That's what programming languages would do. If I'm not mistaken then what I'm saying is that overloaded functions must form a lattice when ordered according to the elsewhere proposed promotion hierarchy of their arguments. That ought to be a doable thing to check for and then we could also use lattice concepts to find the best fitting function. Gotta work this out in detail though. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: