On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 6 November 2015 at 12:45, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev > > <u.zhurav...@postgrespro.ru <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> Hello hackers. > >> There are comments to my patch? Maybe I should create a separate thread? > >> Thanks. > > > > You should add this on commitfest.postgresql.org. > > > > I think the first question that needs to be answered is "do we want > > this?". I'm sure I know your answer, but what do other people think? > > Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I > don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or > variable start-pos arrays. > > I'd love negative indexes, but the variable-array-start (mis)feature > means we can't have those. I wouldn't shed a tear if > variable-start-position arrays were deprecated and removed, but that's > a multi-year process, and I'm not convinced negative indexes justify > it even though the moveable array start pos feature seems little-used. > > Since the start-pos is recorded in the array, I wonder if it's worth > supporting negative indexing for arrays with the default 1-indexed > element numbering, and just ERRORing for others. Does anyone really > use anything else? > > Does it have to be "negative"? Would something like array[1:~1] as a syntax be acceptable to denote backward counting? David J.
