Re: Operator class group proposal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:14:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de writes:
> > "Operator class group", unwieldy as it is, conveys the meaning that we
> > are talking about _sets of operator classes_. The nicer terms I have
> > seen all lose a bit of that ring to me.
>
> The thing is that in the proposal as it currently stands, we're *not*
> talking about sets of operator classes, because a group can contain
> "free standing" operators as well. So the apparent technical accuracy
> is really a bit misleading.

Hm. Singleton classes?

> As I'm currently thinking about it, a group is a collection of
> compatible operators, and the fact that it has some of those operators
> in common with an opclass is almost incidental --- not from the index
> AM's point of view maybe, but there will be large chunks of the system
> that work with groups without ever thinking about opclasses.

Can you imagine a class straddling two groups?

[...]
> "opclassgroup" ... ugh.

Indeed.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFhCpZBcgs9XrR2kYRArzKAJ46mOwDkfW+bIC+HEKBROCYwHbk7wCfQCu+
yc0pj2yMXf+HUdJiVwq3Q/o=
=gA/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----