On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it
doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I honestly don't know what function names people will pick, and I
don't care. Someone might like singleton(x), which would be
impractical as a built-in because there could be more than one range
type over the same base type, but if the
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
It's a little strange that we allow people to define functions with one
argument and the same name as a type if such functions are confusing.
As long as your mental model is that such a function is a cast,
everything is fine. The trouble with the range
On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 15:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly
more verbose:
numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');
Right. The question is, does the case occur in practice often
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it
doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm fine with dropping it.
We should also keep in mind that people who
On 21 November 2011 14:55, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it
doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm fine
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 15:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly
more verbose:
numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');
Right. The question is, does the case occur in practice often enough
to justify a shorter notation? I'm not sure.
Well, if
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
...
I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
single-argument range constructors.
We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward. I'm
hesitant to
2011/11/19 Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com:
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
...
I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
single-argument range constructors.
We could change the name, I
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
single-argument range constructors.
We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward.
Yeah, something like int4range_1(42)
On Nov19, 2011, at 21:57 , Tom Lane wrote:
One thing I've been thinking for a bit is that for discrete ranges,
I find the '[)' canonical form to be surprising/confusing. If we
were to fix range_adjacent along the lines suggested by Florian,
would it be practical to go over to '[]' as the
11 matches
Mail list logo
