Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal

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.

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.