On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote type="CITE"><pre>
<font color="#000000">Chris Traylor <<a href="mailto:ctraylor@phalanyx.com">ctraylor@phalanyx.com</a>>
writes:</font>
<font color="#000000">> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:</font>
<font color="#000000">>> I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather</font>
<font color="#000000">>> than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted.</font>
<font color="#000000">> What do you think about making it a configure option, i.e.</font>
<font color="#000000">> --enable-4D-geometry (default false)?</font>
<font color="#000000">Configure options are generally a pain in the neck,</font>
</pre></blockquote> Granted. Especially, if all the ifdefs start making the source hard to read, but they are a viable
compile-timeway to allow the user to make the decision for themselves.<br /><br /><blockquote type="CITE"><pre>
<font color="#000000"> particularly if they</font>
<font color="#000000">cause significant changes in user-visible behavior.</font>
<font color="#000000"> What's wrong with</font>
<font color="#000000">creating separate types instead of changing the behavior of the existing</font>
<font color="#000000">ones?</font>
</pre></blockquote> I'd really rather not write a mirror version of every geometric function, in order to use a private
type.<br/><br /><blockquote type="CITE"><pre>
<font color="#000000"> regards, tom lane</font>
<font color="#000000">---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------</font>
<font color="#000000">TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend</font>
</pre></blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tr><td> Chris<br /><br /> --<br /> Sometimes I
wonderwhether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark
Twain</td></tr></table>
