|From:||Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>|
|To:||Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostGreSql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 1/19/14, 2:12 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> That might seem overly pedantic, but it's quite annoying when API
> documentation doesn't fully specify the behaviour, and you're forced
> to use trial-and-error to find out how the functions behave.
For what it's worth, I was thinking the same thing when I was looking at
that table. Nearly *all* of them are completely inadequate at
explaining the finer details, and the user has to experiment to figure
out what actually happens. I seem to recall other similar examples in
our documentation for functions.
Personally I would like to see this fixed for all functions, not just
array functions. But I think that should be a separate patch.
|Next Message||Stefan Kaltenbrunner||2014-01-19 14:31:06||Re: Changeset Extraction v7.0 (was logical changeset generation)|
|Previous Message||Dean Rasheed||2014-01-19 13:12:10||Re: array_length(anyarray)|