Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

2011/11/19 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
> ...
>
>> I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
>> single-argument range constructors.
>
> We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward. I'm
> hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly more
> verbose:
>
>  numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');

one parameter range should be confusing. Single parameter range
constructors is useless

Regards

Pavel

>
> But I don't have any particularly good ideas to save them, either.
>
> Regarding the zero-argument (empty) constructors, I'd be fine removing
> them. They don't seem to cause problems, but the utility is also very
> minor.
>
> Regards,
>        Jeff Davis
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>