On May 26, 2010, at 4:09 PM, alvherre wrote:
> The problem with the => operator seems best resolved as not accepting
> such an operator in a function parameter, which sucks but we don't seem
> to have a choice. Perhaps we could allow "=>" to resolve as the
> operator for the case the user really needs to use it; or a
> schema-qualified operator.
I think requiring schema-qualification is an acceptable compromise.
Best,
David
