Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

2013/4/3 Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>

> On 04/04/13 03:02, Florian Pflug wrote:
>
>> On Apr3, 2013, at 15:30 , Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/02/2013 02:46 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we're going to break compatibility, we should IMHO get rid of
>>>> non-zero lower bounds all together. My guess is that the number of
>>>> affected users wouldn't be much higher than for the proposed patch,
>>>> and it'd allow lossless mapping to most language's native array types…
>>>>
>>> That would actually break a HUGE number of users, since the default lower
>>> bound is 1. I have seen any number of pieces if code that rely on that.
>>>
>> Uh, yeah, we should make it 1 then, not 0, then. As long as the bound
>> is fixed, conversion to native C/Java/Ruby/Python/... arrays would still
>> be lossless.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Florian Pflug
>>
>>
>> Zero as the default lower bound is consistent with most languages
> (especially the common ones like C, C++, Java, & Python), in fact I don't
> remember any language where that is not the case (ignoring SQL) - and I've
> written programs in about 20 languages.
>

pascal, ADA, and ALGOL like languages

Regards

Pavel

>
> Maybe we should adopt the famous compromise of '0.5'? :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Gavin
>
>
>
> --
> 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<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers>
>