Re: unary plus

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unary plus
Date: 2001-06-01 21:09:26
Message-ID: 8294.991429766@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> This is unary plus. One time somebody complained about it,
> then some time later thought about it and implemented it.

I'd vote against the gram.y part of this change (doUnaryPlus),
but the rest looks OK.

The reason we have doNegate is mainly so that MININT can be represented
without overflow (assuming that atoi gets it right, of course). There's
no corresponding issue with unary plus, and no good reason to hard-wire
assumptions about the operator's semantics into gram.y.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • unary plus at 2001-06-01 19:52:42 from Marko Kreen

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-01 21:35:04 Re: show all;
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-01 21:01:16 Re: show all;