Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Conway wrote: >> Tom objected to changing the names:
> I agree a renaming of list functions is good. If we had kept the > original Berkeley code as-is, we would have a lot fewer developers > today. :-) Making drastic cleanups is often worthwile. I would be satisfied if we kept the names of the core, most-commonly-used functions the same. I would put lfirst, lnext, lcons, lappend, length, maybe member into the category of names I don't want to change. Attaching "_int" and "_oid" to those for the related functions is okay. If we go in that direction then the common prefix would be just "l" and not "list_", which seems a good idea to me on grounds of brevity. Looking over Neil's proposal again, one of the things that bugged me about it was that the function names were overly verbose. That's okay for stuff you don't see often, but the common list functions are *all over* the backend. You can't really claim that developers will be unfamiliar with them. Making those names longer won't buy us anything except sooner onset of carpal tunnel syndrome. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings