This would make no difference of course for the common case where the
array lower bound is 1, but it seems a lot less arbitrary when it isn't.
So I think we should strongly consider changing it to mean that, even
though it would be non-backwards-compatible in such cases.
Comments?
If you break backwards compatibility, it can be done arrays
similar to C/C++/Python/Ruby and other languages style?
I'm sorry to bring up this thread again...
ISTM that if we'd had Yury's code in there from the beginning, what we
would define this as meaning is "a[3:4][:5]", ie the implied range runs
from whatever the array lower bound is up to the specified subscript.
[3:4][:5] instead a[3:4][5] at least this is logical. But after what will
result from a[3:4][5]? One element?
Thanks.
--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
