On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things
> like:
> RANGE[10,20)
> But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the
> grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
I like it a lot better than the funkily-named functions you posted yesterday.
Best,
David
