[postgis-devel] Function Removal

[Regina Obe]

That example wouldn’t work even if we put in named args for those :)

 

Because we would then need to make x, y, z optional in ST_Translate, so that would require dropping those signatures and readding them.

Let put aside the breakage in existing workflow for a minute

 

But we would have to allow ST_Translate(geom)  - and what shoud that mean? 

 

and gosh that’s like 4 extra characters you have to type to save typing 1 extra character :).  I know it’s clearer but

 

what if we went by the docs 

 

ST_Traslate(geom, deltax => 10, deltay => 0)

 

Are you going to remember is it  “x” or “deltax” :)

 

Is such clarity really worth the nuisance of having to reference the manual all the time for the name of the argument?

 

I know I sound like an old nay-sayer stuck in the dark ages clinging on to the simplicity of the past.

 

From: postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Rindahl
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:27 PM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] Function Removal

 

I agree with all that but it could have advantages:  ST_Translate(geom,x=>10) for a shift to the right,  ST_Translate(geom,y=>10) for a shift up, ST_Scale(z=>10) for vertical distortion. 

  The functions , comments, and documents would all have to be updated and in sync with 'accepted' names.

 

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:19 PM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us <mailto:lr at pcorp.us> > wrote:

> Since they've come in we've really under-used named parameters. Some of
> that because of legacy, some of it because of mental inertia. But for
these
> kinds of things they seem pretty ideal to me. Mean what you say, say what
> you mean, have what your parameters mean be clear instead of opaque. A
> good habit, all in all.
> 
> P
> 
In the beginning I thought named args were great, but I've come to think of
them as being a little evil.
Don't get me wrong -- they are indispensable in raster and pgRouting, cause
there is a butt load of arguments and it's hard to undo or even questionable
if we should.

But for cases where we have few args, I find the evilness much worse than
the disease they are there to cure.

Mostly because of our indecision with coming up with good names and then
changing our mind 
and then the fact our names in the docs don't even always match the named
args ones we have .

Remember Paul when your OCD kicked in and you decided to rename an arg?

Oops we can't change the name of the arg without dropping the function oops
we can't rename it because what if someone is using the name.

So I don't care what the OGC says

ST_Point(x,y, srid)

With last arg always meaning srid seems clearest to me.

No overloading with z,m etc.

Have separate named functions for that.

_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org> 
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20201217/ac5c3631/attachment-0001.html>