> This would make no difference of course for the common case where the
> array lower bound is 1, but it seems a lot less arbitrary when it isn't.
> So I think we should strongly consider changing it to mean that, even
> though it would be non-backwards-compatible in such cases.
>
> Comments?
If you break backwards compatibility, it can be done arrays
similar to C/C++/Python/Ruby and other languages style?
I'm sorry to bring up this thread again...
> ISTM that if we'd had Yury's code in there from the beginning, what we
> would define this as meaning is "a[3:4][:5]", ie the implied range runs
> from whatever the array lower bound is up to the specified subscript.
[3:4][:5] instead a[3:4][5] at least this is logical. But after what will
result from a[3:4][5]? One element?
Thanks.
--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
