On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:26:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > > One option might be for Postgres to define duplicate operator names > > using ¿ or something else. I think ¿ is a good choice because it's a > > common punctuation mark in spanish so it's probably not hard to find > > on a lot of keyboards or hard to find instructions on how to type one. > > Are you sure that using a non-ASCII character is a good idea for an > in-core operator? I would think no.
Eventually language designers will cross that Rubicon in mainstream languages. And why not? It sure would be convenient... from the designer's p.o.v. Of course, _users_ would be annoyed, as most users in the English-speaking world will have no idea how to type such characters, most others also will not know how to, and there will be users still using non-Unicode locales who will be unable to type such characters at all. Cut-n-paste will save the day, not doubt, though mostly/only for users using Unicode locales. But it is tempting. Using non-ASCII Unicode characters for _alternatives_ seems like a possible starting point though, since that leaves users with a universally- available ASCII alternative. Still, now users would then have to recognize multiple equivalent forms... ugh. Nico -- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
