> There's another issue, which is that the routines that implement
> operations for a particular type are generally named after the type's
> internal name. I trust you are not going to propose that we find a way
> to put spaces into C function names ;-). It seems to me that the
> confusion created by having support code named differently from the
> type's internal name is just as bad as having the internal name
> different from the external name.
>
> This being the case, it seems like "bit_varying" might be a reasonable
> compromise for the internal name, and that should work already...
Having only one type with an underscore seems like a mistake. We already
don't have internal names matching. I would just make it bit, bitvar,
or maybe varbit.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
