On 06/04/2015 11:33 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 6/4/15 8:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> You are conflating two different things here, quite pointlessly. The RH
>> operand of ?| is not a path, whereas the RH operand of this - variant
>> is. The fact that they are both text arrays doesn't mean that they
>> should mean the same thing. And this is really the whole problem with
>> the rest of your analysis.
>
> Has the idea of a specific json_path datatype been discussed? I feel
> it would add a lot of clarity to the operators. It would also make it
> easy to have an array of paths, something that's difficult to do today
> because a path can be an arbitrary length and arrays don't support that.
I actually thought of doing something like that earlier today, although
I was thinking of making it an array under the hood - I'm not sure how
much call there is for an array of paths. We could probably finesse
that. I agree that there is some sense in having such a type, especially
if we later want to implement json(b)_patch, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902>. And if we do we should call the
type json_pointer to be consistent with
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6901>.
However, this is certainly not 9.5 material.
cheers
andrew
