Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> The other suggestion that had been tossed around elsewhere upthread
> was inventing a new type that serves the demand for a straightforward
> mutable list, which has exactly one dimension, and which may be
> sensibly empty. Those few who are interested in dimensions >= 2 could
> keep on using "arrays", with all their backwards-compatible silliness
> intact, and everybody else could migrate to "lists" at their leisure.
> I don't hate the latter idea from a user perspective, but from a
> developer perspective I suspect there are valid objections to be made.
The real problem with that is that the existing arrays have glommed onto
the syntax that is both most natural and SQL-spec-required. I don't
think there is a lot of room to shove in a different kind of critter
there. (There's been a remarkable lack of attention to the question
of spec compliance in this thread, btw. Surely the standard has
something to say on the matter of zero-length arrays?)
regards, tom lane
