Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Date: 2011-10-11 16:18:18
Message-ID: CA+TgmobqHd0N14LbE1gzunAQQ-7wV=tEb2E1=iQcX_Z2Z0AiCQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> Nothing's bad about '[]' per se.  What's better, but possibly out of
> the reach of our current lexing and parsing system, would be things
> like:
>
> [1::int, 10)

That's been discussed before. Aside from the parser issues (which are
formidable) it would break brace-matching in most if not all commonly
used editors.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-10-11 16:30:02 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Previous Message David Fetter 2011-10-11 16:12:10 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor