On Monday 25 August 2008 04:24:23 Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems to me that what this boils down to is whether we want to read the
> spec literally ("it says the construct is defined in terms of operators
> named >= and <=, therefore we should do that") or by intent (obviously
> what they *want* is a construct that behaves sensibly in terms of the
> datatype's semantics).
I would be generally in favor of moving more toward a semantics-based approach
instead of a name-based approach.
It would be interesting to see an enumeration of all the parts of the system
that hardcode operator names. Based on that we might gain more insight into
what it would take to go one way or another.
