Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types

From: James Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Date: 2009-09-09 18:24:30
Message-ID: 0CECE3D0-0836-456F-BDF5-5CE6B58CDC60@jwp.name
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sep 9, 2009, at 4:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> That's beginning to sound a bit like a generics feature. E.g.,
>
> CREATE FUNCTION the_same<T>(arg_a T, arg_b T) RETURNS bool AS $$
> SELECT arg_a IS DISTINCT FROM arg_b;
> $$;

mmm, yeah... ISTM that expansion in this area should probably head
toward generics..

Does SQL spec such a thing?

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-09-09 18:27:08 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-09-09 18:19:32 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types