On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2015-11-09 17:55 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev <u.zhurav...@postgrespro.ru>:
>>>
>>>> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation.
>>>> >
>>>> > If some functionality can be implemented via functions without
>>>> performance
>>>> > impacts, we should not to create new operators or syntax - mainly for
>>>> > corner use cases.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards
>>>> >
>>>> > Pavel
>>>>
>>>> Ok we can use {:} instead [:] for zero array access.
>>>> The function is the solution half.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't solution. The any syntax/behave change have to have stronger
>>> motivation. We had so talk about it 20 years ago :(
>>>
>>
>> Assuming array[~n] has a current meaning, could we give a try to new
>> syntax which doesn't have current meaning? Not yet sure what exactly it
>> could be...
>>
>
> Using this syntax can introduce compatibility issues -
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createoperator.html
>
I actually meant some other syntax which doesn't introduce compatibility
issues. For instance, array{n} doesn't have meaning in current syntax
AFAICS.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
