Re: BIT/BIT VARYING names (was Re: [HACKERS] Beta for 4:30AST)

> There's another issue, which is that the routines that implement
> operations for a particular type are generally named after the type's
> internal name. I trust you are not going to propose that we find a way
> to put spaces into C function names ;-). It seems to me that the
> confusion created by having support code named differently from the
> type's internal name is just as bad as having the internal name
> different from the external name.
>
> This being the case, it seems like "bit_varying" might be a reasonable
> compromise for the internal name, and that should work already...

Having only one type with an underscore seems like a mistake. We already
don't have internal names matching. I would just make it bit, bitvar,
or maybe varbit.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026