On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 16:46, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> > >>> Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like
> > >>> "anytype" :-(
> > >>
> > >> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think.
> >
> > > I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's.
> >
> > I want to change the name because (a) we are changing the semantics,
> > (b) we can't throw notices for opaque if we keep it as a valid choice.
>
> Hmm, "any" would sound like it is the same as opaque. Would "any" really be
> all allowed types ? I think we would want to eliminate that altogether.
Erm.. count(*) <- * is literally anything.
