On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote: > Hello Hackers, > > If you dislike bike-shedding (and who does?), delete this email and the > ensuing thread right now. You have been warned! > > I have been playing with Andrew’s JSON enhancements and really enjoying them. > I am already using them in code I’m developing for production deployment in a > month or two. Kudos! > > However, I am not so keen on the function names. They all start with json_! > This mostly feels redundant to me, since the types of the parameters are part > of the function signature. > > Therefore, I would like to propose different names: > > Existing Name Proposed Name > -------------------------- ---------------------------------------- > json_array_length() array_length() or length() or size() > json_each() each_json() > json_each_as_text() each_text() > json_get() get_json() > json_get_as_text() get_text() > json_get_path() get_json() > json_get_path_as_text() get_text() > json_object_keys() get_keys() > json_populate_record() record() or row() > json_populate_recordset() records() or rows() > json_unnest() get_values() > json_agg() collect_json() > > Note that I have given json_get() and json_get_path() the same names, as it > seems to me that the former is the same as the latter, with only one > parameter. Same for json_get_as_text() and json_get_path_as_text().
I realize I'm in the minority here, but -1 from me on all of this. Should we also rename xml_is_well_formed() to just is_well_formed()? string_agg() to agg()? Eventually we will have more data types, and some of them will have functions that could also be called rows() or get_values(), but it's unlikely that they'll have exactly the same behavior, which will start to make things confusing. -- 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
