Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> What I really
> care about is that we don't talk ourselves into needing a zillion
> constructor functions. Making things work with a single constructor
> function seems to me to simplify life quite a bit, and allowing there
> seems essential for that.

I think we pretty much all agree on that. However, you did see the note
about the difficulty of using default parameters in built-in functions,
right?

I ultimately ended up with 4 constructors, each with the same name but
0, 1, 2, and 3 parameters. Suggestions welcome.

> (I am also vaguely wondering what happens if if you have a text
> range.... is (nubile, null) ambiguous?)

There are a few ways to handle that. I would lean toward parsing the
NULL as a special keyword, and then rejecting it (does it matter if it's
upper case?).

Regards,
Jeff Davis