> >>> Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like > >>> "anytype" :-( > >> > >> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think. > > > I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's. > > I want to change the name because (a) we are changing the semantics, > (b) we can't throw notices for opaque if we keep it as a valid choice.
Hmm, "any" would sound like it is the same as opaque. Would "any" really be all allowed types ? I think we would want to eliminate that altogether. If it is not all types I would rather use a more restrictive name (nulltype / anynumeric). Imho opaque is missing a runtime type info, like a descriptor, and thus only "pass by value" could not be allowed anymore. I guess I must sleep over this, not convinced about depricating opaque yet :-) > I meant that if the one name is "any", then making the other "anyarray" > (ie, both without "type" on the end) is consistent. Ah, good. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
