On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Alastair Turner <bell@ctrlf5.co.za> wrote:
> .....
>
> Given that it potentially produces a delimited list, not a straight
> conacatenation (and that list is unacceptable since it would be
> descriptive as a noun but not as a verb) would implode_agg not be the
> most descriptive name?
>
Actually, scratch that. The other *agg functions are named for what
they produce as output. Not for their process - as per the objection
to list_agg and suggestions of conact_agg and implode_agg. string_agg
would be consistent, which is a wonderful thing if you can get it in a
naming scheme.
