Tom Lane wrote:
But I think I like better the notion of extending my bound-together-

Suppose that we do that, and then further say that ANYARRAY or
ANYELEMENT appearing as the return type implies that the return type
is actually the common element or array type.  Then we have such
useful behaviors as:

        array_push(anyarray, anyelement) returns anyarray
        array_pop(anyarray) returns anyelement
        array_subscript(anyarray, int) yields anyelement
        singleton_array(anyelement) yields anyarray

The last three cases cannot be handled by a SAMEASPARAM construct.

That was my concern also. I like the above.

So if I understand correctly, all instances of anyarray and anyelement in a function definition would need to be self-consistent, but the group could represent essentially any datatype with its corresponding array type. If we need more than one of these self consistent groups, we could resort to anyarray1/anyelement1, etc. Does this sound correct?

Also, an implementation question: if I have a type oid for an element, what is the preferred method for determining the corresponding array? I'm thinking that the most efficient method might be to use the element-type name with a '_' prepended to get the array-type oid, but that seems ugly. Thoughts?



---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to