On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > FWIW, I'm attracted to the all-similarly-named-functions-together > method, mainly because it dodges the problem of how to encode a > function's argument list into a filename. However, we're being > short-sighted to only think of functions here. What about operators? > Or casts? Those don't have simple names either. >
Someone suggested to urlencode them. I think that's a quite good solution. Personally, I don't have any user-defined operators or casts. Don't know how common it is in general, but it must of course work for these as well.
