On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am thinking so we have to do decision about string_to_array and
>>> array_to_string deprecation first. If these function will be
>>> deprecated, then we can use a similar names (and probably we should to
>>> use a similar names) - so text_to_array or array_to_string can be
>>> acceptable. If not, then this discus is needless - then to_string and
>>> to_array have to be maximally in contrib - stringfunc is good idea -
>>> and maybe we don't need thinking about new names.
>>
>> Well, -1 from me for deprecating string_to_array and array_to_string.
>>
>> I am not in favor of the names to_string and to_array even if we put
>> them in contrib, though. The problem with string_to_array and
>> array_to_string is that they aren't descriptive enough, and
>> to_string/to_array is even less so.
>
> I am not a English native speaker, so I have a different feeling.
> These functions do array_serialisation and array_deseralisation, but
> this names are too long. I have not idea about better names - it is
> descriptive well (for me) text->array, array->text - and these names
> shows very cleanly symmetry between functions. I have to repeat - it
> is very clean for not native speaker.
Well, the problem is that array_to_string(), for example, tells you
that an array is being converted to a string, but not how. And
to_string() tells you that you're getting a string, but it doesn't
tell you either what you're getting it from or how you're getting it.
We already have a function to_char() which can be used to format a
whole bunch of different types as strings; I can't see adding a new
function with almost the same name that does something completely
different.
array_split() and array_join(), following Perl? array_implode() and
array_explode(), along the lines suggested by Brendan?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
