Horton

Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-17T23:40:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:17 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Especially not for unary operators, where
> >> ALTER OPERATOR would have us write "- (NONE, integer)".
>
> > I'd drop the parens for unary and just write "- integer"
>
> We do have some postfix operators still ... although it looks like
> there's only one in core.  In any case, the signature line is *the*
> thing that is supposed to specify what the syntax is, so I'm not
> too pleased with using an ambiguous notation for it.
>

Neither:

- (NONE, integer)

nor

! (integer, NONE)

seem bad, and do make very obvious how they are different.

The left margin scanning ability for the symbol (hey, I have an expression
here that uses @>, what does that do?) seems worth the bit of novelty
required.

David J.

Commits

  1. Doc: re-re-revise markup for tables of functions.

  2. Doc: revise formatting of function/operator tables.