From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Getting OID in psql of recent insert |
Date: | 1999-11-29 11:58:22 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911291251350.19842-100000@Radha.DoCS.UU.SE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > I'd not object if we removed these operators and instead provided
> > functions with the standard names log() and exp() for all the
> > non-integral numeric types. Comments?
>
> I have no great fondness for ";" and ":" as operators, but would like
> to see some operators assigned to these functions. Certainly the carat
> "^" could work for exp() (or maybe "**" to make those old Fortran
> programmers feel better about themselves ;), and perhaps "!^" for
> log()? Any other ideas for appropriate symbols for these operators??
I wasn't aware of any Obfuscated SQL Contest ...
I personally think that the greatest possible benefit can only be derived
if all of this looks as much as possible like actual mathematical writing.
Thus I could agree with a power operator '^' and perhaps even a unary '^'
exponential operator, although that's already questionable. But by
inventing non-standard operators for every function under the sun, just to
have one, you're not doing anyone (including yourself) a favour.
That's just me though. As you said yourself, good ideas will stand the
test of an extended discussion ;)
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-11-29 13:11:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Referential Integrety |
Previous Message | S S Mani | 1999-11-29 09:41:58 | Pro*C conversion |