Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes:
> >> It's one thing to say that "apples || oranges" should
> >> be interpreted as "apples::text || oranges::text", but it is quite
> >> another to say that "apples <= oranges" should be handled that way.
>
> > Hmm. istm that we might need some information to travel with the
> > operators, not just the coersion functions themselves. We have a fairly
> > type-rich system, but need to preserve the ability to add types and a
> > *partial* set of functions and operators and get reasonable behaviors.
>
> Could we do anything based on looking at the whole set of candidate
> operators? For example, I think that the reason "apples || oranges"
> is so appealing is that there really is only one way to interpret
> the || operator; whereas of course there are lots of different <=
> operators. Perhaps we could be more forgiving of implicit coercions
> when there are fewer candidate operators, in some way? Again, something
> based on type categories would make sense to me. Perhaps allow
> cross-category implicit coercions only if there are no candidate
> operators accepting the input's native category?
Yes, I think any solution will have to consider the number of possible
conversions for a given mix of function/args.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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
