2008/12/17 Gregory Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com>: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >>> On Wednesday 17 December 2008 20:50:22 Tom Lane wrote: >>>> The behavior at zero arguments is >>>> certainly a judgment call, but it seems to me that we'll wind up with >>>> more warts and less flexibility if we try to make the system install a >>>> default behavior for that case. >> >>> Maybe we'll just let it be for now and see what kind of user demands we get. >> >> Fair enough. We could possibly have the system install a "default >> default" for variadic arguments, but I'd rather add that later >> on the basis of demand than stick it in now. > > My inclination would be to say zero arguments is zero arguments and you get a > zero-length array. We could eliminate the problem with anyelement by saying > the variadic argument can't be the only polymorphic argument. >
I disagree. Polymorphism is strong feature and without it, you have to repeat code. Or maybe divide this problem to two cases: zero typed variadic arguments, and nnempty polymorphic variadic argument. Regards Pavel Stehule > I think there are going to be more users using non-polymorphic arguments who > are surprised that no arguments is a special case than people using > polymorphic arguments who are annoyed by restrictions at the intersection. > > Actually I think my vote would be for whatever requires the least code now. If > you've already committed something then let's just go with that. > > -- > Gregory Stark > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers