On 14 June 2013 03:53, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote: > Similar things should have dissimilar names. I propose: > > <bikeshedding> > > Old | New > --------------+-------------- > array_dims | array_desc
array_bounds? > array_ndims | array_depth > array_length | array_size > array_lower | array_start > array_upper | array_finish > > The last two are meh, but it’s a place to start… I think that even with the most dissimilar names we can come up with, this is going to confuse people. But it is still better than doing nothing. I wonder whether, if we go in this direction, we could still use some of the work I did on deprecating zero-D arrays. Let's say the old functions keep doing what they do now, and we teach them to treat all empty arrays the same way they currently treat zero-D arrays (return NULL). The new functions treat zero-D arrays as though they were 1-D empty with default bounds, and we add CARDINALITY per ArrayGetNItems. This way, applications would not be broken by upgrading, and we'd be giving people a way to opt-in to a better API. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
