On Friday, July 22, 2016, Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> writes: > > >> Prohibiting IS NOT NULL is not on the cards; it's very widely used. > > David> Yet changing how it behaves, invisibly, is? > > Did you mean prohibiting it only for composite-type args? It's obviously > widely used for non-composite args. > > I would expect that >95% of cases where someone has written (x IS NOT > NULL) for x being a composite type, it's actually a bug and that NOT (x > IS NULL) was intended. > > Yeah, it would need to be targeted there. I agree with the numbers and the sentiment but it's still allowed and defined behavior which changing invisibly is disconcerting. David J.
