Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)

> >
> > [ responding to both of Jan's messages in one ]
> >
> > wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > > I like the current interface for it's simpleness from the user
> > > function developers point of view.
> >
> > There is that; even with a good set of convenience macros there will be
> > more to learn about writing user functions. OTOH, the way it is now
> > is not exactly transparent --- in particular, NULL handling is so easy
> > to forget about/get wrong. We can make that much easier. We can also
> > simplify the interface noticeably for standard types like float4/float8.
> >
> > BTW: I am not in nearly as big a hurry as Bruce is to rip out support
> > for the current user-function interface. I want to get rid of old-style
> > builtin functions before 7.0 because of the portability issue (see
> > below). But if a particular user is using old-style user functions
> > and isn't having portability problems on his machine, there's no need
> > to force him to convert, it seems to me.
>
> Personally, I could live with dropping the entire old
> interface. That's not the problem. But at least Bruce and his
> book need to know the final programming conventions if we
> ought to change it at all, so it can be covered in his
> manuscript when it is sent down to the paper.

No. My coverage of that is going to be more conceptual than actual
programming. Do whatever you think is best.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026