Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

From: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)
Date: 2013-04-03 16:09:01
Message-ID: 515C541D.1070605@archidevsys.co.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04/04/13 04:58, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/4/3 Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz 
> <mailto:GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>>
>
>     On 04/04/13 03:02, Florian Pflug wrote:
>
>         On Apr3, 2013, at 15:30 , Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net
>         <mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>> wrote:
>
>             On 04/02/2013 02:46 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
>
>                 If we're going to break compatibility, we should IMHO
>                 get rid of
>                 non-zero lower bounds all together. My guess is that
>                 the number of
>                 affected users wouldn't be much higher than for the
>                 proposed patch,
>                 and it'd allow lossless mapping to most language's
>                 native array types...
>
>             That would actually break a HUGE number of users, since
>             the default lower
>             bound is 1. I have seen any number of pieces if code that
>             rely on that.
>
>         Uh, yeah, we should make it 1 then, not 0, then. As long as
>         the bound
>         is fixed, conversion to native C/Java/Ruby/Python/... arrays
>         would still
>         be lossless.
>
>         best regards,
>         Florian Pflug
>
>
>     Zero as the default lower bound is consistent with most languages
>     (especially the common ones like C, C++, Java, & Python), in fact
>     I don't remember any language where that is not the case (ignoring
>     SQL) - and I've written programs in about 20 languages.
>
>
> pascal, ADA, and ALGOL like languages
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
ALOGOL 60 was zero based by default, as I remember deliberately setting 
the lower bound to 1, I managed to avoid PASCAL and I only glanced at ADA.


Cheers,
Gavin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2013-04-03 16:16:48
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2013-04-03 16:01:15
Subject: Re: CREATE EXTENSION BLOCKS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group