* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Well, actually I think Pavel's got a point. What about overloaded
> functions? In \df we don't try to solve that problem, we just print
> them all:
To be honest, I was reading through that code the other night and could
have sworn that I saw us doing some kind of magic on the arguments under
\df, but of course I don't see it now.
> Now, maybe we *should* teach \df about handling parameter types and
> then \ef can piggyback on it, but that code isn't there now.
That's definitely the right approach, imv. It should also work if only
a function name is provided and it's not overloaded, of course.
Thanks,
Stephen
