Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Bailey <artacus@comcast.net> writes:
>> So basically I have an anyrange pseudo type with the functions prev,
>> next, last, etc defined. So instead of hard coding range types, we would
>> allow the user to define their own range types. Basically if we are able
>> to determine the previous and next values of the base types we'd be able
>> to define a range type. I'm envisioning in a manner much like defining
>> an enum type.
>
> I think array types, not enums, would be a better model.
I was referring to the syntax for how the user actually defined an enum
not about it's implementation. Basically what I was hoping to get out of
this thread was whether it was better to allow the user to define their
own range types by specifying the base type and possibly the granularity and default inclusiveness of the end points,
orif we should just
provide the types like period and intrange?
Scott