Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe I would have objected to an int/bool cast. I do so now
> anyway.
This was already discussed and agreed to. Since it's an explicit-only
cast, I see no harm in it. And it's certainly been requested often
enough.
> - Casting back and forth does not preserve information. (This may be
> true for some other type pairs as well, but in this case it's true in
> almost every instance.)
On those grounds we should disallow most of the numeric-category casts.
> - It's an arbitary definition that is not obviously supported by
> mathematical or similar principles.
Nonetheless, the convention 0=false, 1=true is widely recognized.
> - It opens the door for other silly casts like empty string => false,
> non-empty string => true.
I haven't seen any requests for any such casts. This cast is responding
to market demand, no more.
> - It's unnecessary because you can express the same thing using other
> expressions that clearly state what they do.
Basically what this is for is building in a feature that people
otherwise build for themselves. On the grounds of "it's unnecessary"
we could throw away large chunks of Postgres :-)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
