| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic builtin functions |
| Date: | 2005-11-10 19:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | 11179.1131650715@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Maybe my conception of enums is different from yours. My conception is
> basically that of C enums. Where they're purely a creature of the syntax and
> type system. At run-time they don't make any effort to prevent you from
> treating them as integers.
Well, C is notorious for its weak notions of type, so I hardly think
that counts as precedent for what we should do in SQL ;-)
I don't mind offering a cast from enum to integer, at all, but I think
it needs to be explicit-only.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-10 19:37:34 | Re: generic builtin functions |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-11-10 19:20:58 | Re: generic builtin functions |