Tom Lane wrote:
>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I thought the "S" suggestion was much better than this.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>My problem is that it uses a letter as a modifier, while all other
>>letters are object specifications. '+' is a modifier. We need another
>>modifier that isn't a letter. No one knew \dtS worked because 'S'
>>doesn't look like a modifier.
>>
>>
>
>I don't buy that argument in the least. I think the reason people
>didn't know about "S" was they didn't RTFM (or possibly that the FM
>isn't sufficiently clear). Changing to a different character won't make
>any difference at all, only improving the docs will make a difference.
>
>But I could live with using "-" to suppress system objects. That isn't
>a character we're likely to want to use as a command metacharacter
>someday.
>
>
>
>
ISTM one problem is we are inconsistent about it - \d and \dt don't
show system objects, but \df shows system functions. Reading TFM is a
good thing, but so is consistency.
'-' isn't a very nice choice, because \df-+ would be really confusing.
If you don't like '&', then '@' and '!' seem to be at least as free as
'-' ;-)
cheers
andrew
