On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 07:12:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > IOW, their function resolution code treats a(int, int default 0) > > as being equivalent to a(int) and a(int, int). > > So you are willing to prohibit a(int) from existing in parallel with > a(int, int-with-a-default) ? > > I'll be interested to see the unique-index scheme for pg_proc to > enforce that ;-) > > However this does point up the fact that there already *is* a way to > accomplish the task, which is just to create some helper function(s) > to supply the default(s). Perhaps we can leave it at that for the > time being, and concentrate on adding real new functionality.
That'd be neat. :) Here's another possibility. PostgreSQL has already "gone there" with multidimensional ARRAYs, and thanks, Joe! What about making HASHes a first-class object? This would do two controversial things (that I've thought of). 1. Use the => operator, removing it from the pool of unused operators. 2. Possibly encourage people to Do The Wrong Thing(TM). What we'd get for the effort, though, is tighter integration with languages that have some kind of associative array structure, which is to say all the "scripting" languages, and an ability to deal with data structures to and from queries that more closely matches what the middleware/front end needs to do. How big a can of worms am I opening here? Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
