> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Bryn wrote: >> >> There could, so easily, have been three “to_char()” overloads for these >> three data types… > > The argument about avoiding the implicit cast, and thus being easier for > newcomers to figure out, is the compelling one for me. But, frankly, “it just > works” applies here - I’ve seen little evidence that there is a meaningful > usability issue in the community.
Thanks, David. Yes, I agree. This will be my advice: Use a “date” actual for “to_char()”, with no explicit typecast, and with a template that makes sense. In this special case it’s safe to relax the usual rule of practice and just let the implicit typecast have its innocent effect.
