On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > I know -- for this I asked. IMHO for large project like PostgreSQL > it's important. It's not good if there is possible speculate about > name of new function. It must be unmistakable -- for this is needful > make some convension. If somebody add new function and it's released, > it's in the PostgreSQL almost forever.
I agree that a naming convention would be useful in some circumstances, but for commonly-used functions, I think it would do more harm than good. 'pg_nextval()' is awfully ugly, for example. And if we're going to have a naming convention for builtin functions, what about builtin types? 'pg_int4', anyone? :-) Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
