Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 03:14 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> Maybe ranges over discrete types are slightly more likely to be closed,
> and ranges over continuous types slightly more likely to be open. Still,
> I very much doubt that the skew in the distribution is large enough to
> warrant the confusion and possibility of subtle bugs we introduce by making
> the semantics of a range type's constructor depend on the definition of the
> range and/or base type.

I think you persuaded me on the consistency aspect.

I'm wondering whether to do away with the default argument entirely, and
just force the user to always specify it during construction. It seems
like a shame that such pain is caused over the syntax, because in a
perfect world it wouldn't be a bother to specify it at all. I even
considered using prefix/postfix operators to try to make it nicer, but
it seems like every idea I had was just short of practical. Maybe a few
extra characters at the end aren't so bad.

I'd like to hear from some potential users though to see if anyone
recoils at the common case.

Regards,
Jeff Davis