2013/4/3 Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> > On 04/04/13 03:02, Florian Pflug wrote: > >> On Apr3, 2013, at 15:30 , Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >> >>> On 04/02/2013 02:46 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: >>> >>>> If we're going to break compatibility, we should IMHO get rid of >>>> non-zero lower bounds all together. My guess is that the number of >>>> affected users wouldn't be much higher than for the proposed patch, >>>> and it'd allow lossless mapping to most language's native array types… >>>> >>> That would actually break a HUGE number of users, since the default lower >>> bound is 1. I have seen any number of pieces if code that rely on that. >>> >> Uh, yeah, we should make it 1 then, not 0, then. As long as the bound >> is fixed, conversion to native C/Java/Ruby/Python/... arrays would still >> be lossless. >> >> best regards, >> Florian Pflug >> >> >> Zero as the default lower bound is consistent with most languages > (especially the common ones like C, C++, Java, & Python), in fact I don't > remember any language where that is not the case (ignoring SQL) - and I've > written programs in about 20 languages. >
pascal, ADA, and ALGOL like languages Regards Pavel > > Maybe we should adopt the famous compromise of '0.5'? :-) > > > Cheers, > Gavin > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-hackers<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers> >
