Re: patch: to_string, to_array functions

David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 
> >> My first thought is that we should go back to the string_to_array and
> >> array_to_string names.  The key reason not to use those names was the
> >> conflict with the old functions if you didn't specify a third argument,
> >> but where is the advantage of not specifying the third argument?  It
> >> would be a lot simpler for people to understand if we just said "the
> >> two-argument forms work like this, while the three-argument forms work
> >> like that".  This is especially reasonable because the difference in
> >> behavior is about nulls in the array, which is exactly what the third
> >> argument exists to specify.
> >> 
> >> [ Sorry for not complaining about this before, but I was on vacation
> >> when the previous naming discussion went on. ]
> > 
> > I can live with that, as long as it's clearly explained in the docs.
> 
> +1

+1

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +