Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> writes:
> That looks like a good change. I wonder what motivates that now? Why
> wasn't it added when the usages grew?
You'd have to find some of the original Berkeley people to get an
answer for that. Possibly it's got something to do with the fact
that C didn't have a separate bool type back then ... or, going
even further back, that LISP didn't either. In any case, it seems
like a plausible improvement now.
Didn't really read the patch in any detail, but I did have one idea:
I think that the different things-that-used-to-be-Value-nodes ought to
use different field names, say ival, rval, bval, sval not just "val".
That makes it more likely that you'd catch any code that is doing the
wrong thing and not going through one of the access macros.
regards, tom lane
