Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I honestly don't know what function names people will pick, and I
> don't care. Someone might like singleton(x), which would be
> impractical as a built-in because there could be more than one range
> type over the same base type, but if the user defines the function
> they can pick what's convenient for them. If they use singletons
> exceedingly frequently they might even want something really short,
> like just(x) or s(x). Or they might say daterange1(x), along the
> lines you suggested earlier.

For that matter, they might pick daterange(x), as I picked earlier, and
run into the same problems.

It's a little strange that we allow people to define functions with one
argument and the same name as a type if such functions are confusing.

This isn't intended as an argument in either direction, just an
observation.

Regards,
Jeff Davis