Re: Implicit coercions need to be reined in

Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> >> It's one thing to say that "apples || oranges" should
> >> be interpreted as "apples::text || oranges::text", but it is quite
> >> another to say that "apples <= oranges" should be handled that way.
>
> > Hmm. istm that we might need some information to travel with the
> > operators, not just the coersion functions themselves. We have a fairly
> > type-rich system, but need to preserve the ability to add types and a
> > *partial* set of functions and operators and get reasonable behaviors.
>
> Could we do anything based on looking at the whole set of candidate
> operators? For example, I think that the reason "apples || oranges"
> is so appealing is that there really is only one way to interpret
> the || operator; whereas of course there are lots of different <=
> operators. Perhaps we could be more forgiving of implicit coercions
> when there are fewer candidate operators, in some way? Again, something
> based on type categories would make sense to me. Perhaps allow
> cross-category implicit coercions only if there are no candidate
> operators accepting the input's native category?

Yes, I think any solution will have to consider the number of possible
conversions for a given mix of function/args.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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