Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If any dimension is written as a slice, i.e. contains a colon, then all > > dimensions are treated as slices. > > > Is the the behavior of assuming an entry with no colon is a slice what > > we want, or are we just stuck with it? > > Why do you find that surprising? It's either a slice or it isn't, > there's no halfway point. Are you proposing to throw an error if only > some of the subscripts have colons? What would be the point?
What is confusing is if I see [1:3][2], I assume that is [1:3][2:2], not [1:3][1:2]. By what logic does [2] mean from 1 to 2? For example, in [1:3][2], [2] means [1:2], two elements, but in [1][2], [2] means one element. > > Is there a reason out-of-bounds array accesses behave differently for > > slices and non-slices? > > History (although "sloppy original implementation" would do too). I'm > not sure if we should try to clean it up --- there've not been that many > complaints, but I'm sure we'd get complaints from people whose code > stopped working, if we change it. OK, so there is no grand design I am missing; it is just a wart in our implementation, that at least we document. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
