On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:25:18PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 03:14 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > > Maybe ranges over discrete types are slightly more likely to be > > closed, and ranges over continuous types slightly more likely to > > be open. Still, I very much doubt that the skew in the > > distribution is large enough to warrant the confusion and > > possibility of subtle bugs we introduce by making the semantics of > > a range type's constructor depend on the definition of the range > > and/or base type. > > I think you persuaded me on the consistency aspect. > > I'm wondering whether to do away with the default argument entirely, > and just force the user to always specify it during construction. It > seems like a shame that such pain is caused over the syntax, because > in a perfect world it wouldn't be a bother to specify it at all. I > even considered using prefix/postfix operators to try to make it > nicer, but it seems like every idea I had was just short of > practical. Maybe a few extra characters at the end aren't so bad. > > I'd like to hear from some potential users though to see if anyone > recoils at the common case.
I'd recoil at not having ranges default to left-closed, right-open. The use case for that one is so compelling that I'm OK with making it the default from which deviations need to be specified. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
