Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> Providing a function with return type declared internal but
> with no parameter of that type is not good,
Not so much "not good" as "absolutely, positively WILL NOT HAPPEN".
> because then a
> user could, in principle, call it and obtain a value of
> 'internal' type, and so get around the typing rules that
> prevent calling other internal functions.
Right --- it'd completely break the system's type-safety for
other internal-using functions.
You could argue that we should never have abused "internal"
to this extent in the first place, compared to inventing a
plethora of internal-ish types to correspond to each of the
things "internal" is used for. But here we are so we'd
better be darn careful with it.
regards, tom lane
