Granted. Especially, if all the ifdefs start making the source hard to read, but they are a viable compile-time way to allow the user to make the decision for themselves.Chris Traylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather >> than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted. > What do you think about making it a configure option, i.e. > --enable-4D-geometry (default false)? Configure options are generally a pain in the neck,
I'd really rather not write a mirror version of every geometric function, in order to use a private type.particularly if they cause significant changes in user-visible behavior. What's wrong with creating separate types instead of changing the behavior of the existing ones?
regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
|
Chris -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain |
