Re: Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds

On Jan14, 2014, at 00:33 , Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
> misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
> lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
> is it just an irritation that it exists?

I don't think it's worh it - as you say, the actual risk of bugs is low,
because you have to go out of your way to end up with a lower bound other
than one.

Also, at least from my POV, the fact that we use one type do represent
arrays with an arbitrary number of dimensions is actually worse than
the lower-bound problem. So *if* we ever remove support for arbitrary
lower bounds, we should also add distinct types for different dimensions.
That'd probably required some extension of the type system though...

best regards,
Florian Pflug