> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:04 PM > To: Peter Eisentraut > Cc: pgsql-hackers > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: stand-alone composite types > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Joe Conway writes: > >>3. Modify CREATE FUNCTION to allow the implicit creation of > a dependent > >> composite type, e.g.: > > > > Forgive this blunt question, but: Why? > > Now's a *great* time for a blunt question because I haven't started > actively working on this yet. Much better than after I'm done. ;-) > > > > Of course I can see the answer, it's convenient, but wouldn't the > > system be more consistent overall if all functions and types are > > declared explicitly? > > > > And of couse you are correct. It is almost purely convenience. My > reasoning was this: if I am creating a function which returns a > composite type, then the fact that a named composite type exists is > superfluous to me. It would be more natural for me to do: > > CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF (f1 int, f2 text); > > than to do: > > CREATE TYPE some_arbitrary_name AS (f1 int, f2 text); > CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF some_arbitrary_name;
Actually, the second looks a lot more natural to me. As in most programming languages, you define the type/class first, and then you can use the type/class as an object. Further, I don't want to have to remember the implementation details, unless I need to dig into them. So: CREATE TYPE locator AS (First_Name varchar, Last_Name varchar, City varchar, State_Province char(2), Country varchar); CREATE FUNCTION CustomerList(varchar specification) RETURNS SETOF locator; Seems far more natural and convenient to me. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: 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
