Re: Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 17:55 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
>>
>>> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation.
>>> >
>>> > If some functionality can be implemented via functions without
>>> performance
>>> > impacts, we should not to create new operators or syntax - mainly for
>>> > corner use cases.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > Pavel
>>>
>>> Ok we can use {:} instead [:] for zero array access.
>>> The function is the solution half.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't solution. The any syntax/behave change have to have stronger
>> motivation. We had so talk about it 20 years ago :(
>>
>
> Assuming array[~n] has a current meaning, could we give a try to new
> syntax which doesn't have current meaning? Not yet sure what exactly it
> could be...
>

Using this syntax can introduce compatibility issues -
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createoperator.html

Regards

Pavel

>
> ------
> Alexander Korotkov
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
>
>