On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > Since "bucket" is the 'verb' here (in this specific case meaning "lookup > the > > supplied value in the supplied bucket definition") and "width" is a > modifier > > (the bucket specification describes an equal-width structure) I suggest > > "literal_bucket(val, array[])" such that the bucket is still the verb but > > now the modifier describes a structure that is literally provided. > > It's a very considerable stretch to see "bucket" as a verb here :-). > Maybe that's why the SQL committee's choice of function name seems > so unnatural (to me anyway). > > I was wondering about bucket_index(), ie "get the index of the bucket > this value falls into". Or get_bucket(), or get_bucket_index() if you > like verbosity. > > regards, tom lane > I got stuck on the thought that a function name should ideally be/include a verb... Even if you read it as a noun (and thus the verb is an implied "get") the naming logic still holds. I pondered a "get_" version though the argument for avoiding conflicting user-code decreases its appeal. The good part about SQL standard naming is that the typical programmer isn't likely to pick a conflicting name. "bucket_index" is appealing by itself though user-code probable...as bad as I think "width_bucket" is for a name the fact is that it currently exists and, even forced, consistency has merit. David J.
