Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It certainly is --- he was actually declaring a cast with it in his
>> example, no?
> That was an attempt at a workaround to get it to do what he wanted.
Oh. If you don't want to think of it as being a cast-like operation,
then naming it after the result type is probably the wrong thing anyway.
regards, tom lane