Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 15:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly
>>> more verbose:
>>> numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');
>>
>> Right. The question is, does the case occur in practice often enough
>> to justify a shorter notation? I'm not sure.
>
> Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it
> doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm fine with dropping it.

We should also keep in mind that people who use range types can and likely will define their own convenience functions. If people use singletons, or open ranges, or closed ranges, or one-hour timestamp ranges frequently, they can make their own notational shorthand with a 3-line CREATE FUNCTION statement. We don't need to have it all in core.

...Robert