[postgis-devel] Function Sigs

[Paragon Corporation]

Just noticed we are still missing the transaction functions.  Paul is there
a reason you don't want to include these or is this just an oversight?


 

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Paragon
Corporation
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 9:03 AM
To: 'PostGIS Development Discussion'
Subject: RE: [postgis-devel] Function Sigs

Can we keep the ST_HasBBOX for now.  You have the companion ST_AddBBOX,
ST_DropBBOX as keep so it seems almost silly to delete the ST_HaSBBOX.

I'm okay with deprecation, but I personally use these because of some bug
issues in earlier  8.3 releases and they are documented in the current
documentation as well.

Thanks,
Regina

 

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Paul
Ramsey
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:08 PM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion
Subject: [postgis-devel] Function Sigs

PSC, can I re-direct your attention to

http://svn.refractions.net/postgis/trunk/doc/rfc/postgis_rfc_03.txt
http://svn.refractions.net/postgis/trunk/doc/rfc/postgis_rfc_03_sheet.txt

I would not mind doing this before release. There's some bone-headed names
in there I'd like to get rid of (st_ prefixes on index functions, etc)

P
_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel



_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel