Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:57:27AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> But, couldn't that be solved by deprecating that function and
> >> providing a more sensible alternatively named version?
> >
> > And what would you name that function? array_dims2? I can't think of
> > a name that makes the difference in behaviour apparent. Can you
> > imagine the documentation for that?
>
> I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's hard to argue that
> deprecating and documenting a few functions is a heavier burden on
> your users than having to sift through older arcane code before
> upgrading to the latest version of the database. We're not the only
> ones stuck with lousy old functions (C finally ditched gets() in the
> 2011 standard). I also happen to think the current array_api function
> names are not particularly great (especially array_upper/array_lower)
> so I won't shed too many tears.

Sorry to be late on this, but are you saying people have code that is
testing:

select array_dims('{}'::int[])

for a NULL return, and they would need to change that to test for zero?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +