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.

Reply via email to