On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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 '[]'?
Nothing's bad about '[]' per se. What's better, but possibly out of the reach of our current lexing and parsing system, would be things like: [1::int, 10) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
