Joe Conway writes:
> And if you use "multidimensional", does that mean you also use
> "onedimensional" and "twodimensional", etc.?
No, the analogues would be "unidimensional", "bidimensional", and
"many-dimensional". There difference is that you close up prefixes (which
are not words by themselves), but you hyphenate compounds of independent
words.
> > The function array_subscript() should be removed from code and
> > The function array_assign() should be removed from code and documentation.
> > The function singleton_array() should be removed from code and
>
> I still have an uneasy feeling that there are situations where your only
> option to get this functionality is via a function call.
Once that feeling materializes into a real concern, we can still consider
action. Maybe there will at some point be a need for these functions, but
maybe we will need a similar function with slightly different
functionality, or whatever. Hard to tell as long as we're fantasizing.
> I've heard no one else vote to remove them.
Was there ever a vote to add them?
> > The functions array_prepend() and array_cat() should be removed from the
> > documentation and considered internal implementations of the operator ||.
>
> I disagree with this one. Both array_prepend() and array_cat() have
> valid use in aggregates.
> > The function array_append() should be documented as being equivalent to
> > 'array || element' and specifically intended for user-defined aggregate
> > functions.
>
> That's fine. I would add similar descriptions for array_prepend() and
> array_cat().
Sounds good. My main concern is that people will have a clear view of
what's standard and recommended for which situation, so that support will
be easier and users won't be confronted with a long list of equivalent,
undifferentiated options.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
