| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: s/LABEL/VALUE/ for ENUMs |
| Date: | 2010-11-23 00:48:31 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimiGa22HJFCj8_aZcsZfPfAgmE9yxn4VfOTj3sx@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 11/22/2010 06:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Maybe instead of "textual label", we should say "name"? But that
>>> doesn't seem like quite le mot juste either. "label" is actually a
>>> pretty good word for the text representation of an enum value.
>
>> Oh my boots and buttons. I think we're splitting some very fine hairs
>> here. A few weeks back you were telling us that label wasn't a very good
>> word and shouldn't be sanctified in the SQL.
>
> It isn't a very good word for the abstract value, IMO, but the text
> representation is a different concept.
+1 for what Andrew said.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-23 01:32:09 | Re: knngist - 0.8 |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-11-23 00:48:17 | Re: s/LABEL/VALUE/ for ENUMs |