Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:

> On 14 Mar 2003, Jason Earl wrote:
>
> > It's all good Scott. Anyone wanting to use PostgreSQL arrays
> > would undoubtedly open up the corresponding part of the manual
> > that covers array functions. Since there is likely to be less
> > than a page full of function definitions you could probably call
> > the functions foo() and bar() and get away with it (please don't).
> > While I personally think that join_str and split_str are somewhat
> > more descriptive, implode and explode are fine.
> >
> > More importantly, since *you* are the one doing the actual legwork
> > it's your call. IMHO that's one of the benefits of actually
> > submitting code. You write the code, you get to pick the function
> > names. Now, you might have some issues from the rest of the
> > PostgreSQL hackers if you named the functions "marlowe-ify" and
> > "un-marlowe-ify", but anything not completely ridiculous should be
> > fine (and even marlowe-ify would have the advantage of not being a
> > reserved word in any software I can think of off hand).
> >
> > As for the rest of the discussion, poking fun at development
> > languages and tools is an age-old part of computers. PHP has the
> > disadvantage of being both very popular, very new, and primarily a
> > web technology (and of not being Lisp like :) so it draws more
> > than its share of flames. It's all good fun.
>
> Actually, I think it was someone else (Joe???) that is doing the leg
> work, and he was the one choosing explode / implode and getting
> gruff for it, so I was just stepping in and defending his decision.

Oops, my bad. My brain must already think that it is the weekend. My
reasoning still stands, though. Whoever writes the code gets to pick
the names (assuming, of course, that they can get them past the rest
of the PostgreSQL hackers). There's parts of PostgreSQL so cool that
I would continue to use them even if the function were called
jason_earl_is_a_stupid_head(). Heck, the reason that I don't like
terms like explode and implode probably stems from the fact that I
tend to have error functions with those sorts of dramatic names :).
You know "lp0 is on fire" type of stuff.

> I do think using a function name with the word join in it meaning
> anything other than a SQL join is a recipe for confusion though.

Perhaps. We'll have to see what gets submitted.

Jason