Re: Range Types and extensions

Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 14:42 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
>> Can Pg be changed to support "." in operator names as long as they don't just
>> appear by themselves? What would this break to do so?
>
> Someone else would have to comment on that. My feeling is that it might
> create problems with qualified names, and also with PG's "arg.function"
> call syntax.

With respect to qualified names or "arg.function", then unless the "function"
can be symbolic, I considered your examples to be the "appear by themselves",
hence "." by itself wouldn't be a new operator, and I generally assumed here
that any multi-character operators with "." to be symbolic.

In any event, I also saw Tom's reply about DOT_DOT being a token already.

-- Darren Duncan