On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote: >> > Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being >> > able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)') >> > really worth it? I kind of doubt that... >> >> You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the >> clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to >> provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on. > > That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in > range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former > excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing. > > We could go back to having different constructor names for different > inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the > awkwardness of typing (and seeing) '[]'.
The cure seems worse than the disease. What is so bad about '[]'? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
