On 2018/03/14 17:16, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/03/10 13:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> I think it'd make more sense to see about incorporating that idea in
>>> predicate_implied_by_simple_clause/predicate_refuted_by_simple_clause.
>>
>> After further thought, it seems like the place to deal with this is
>> really operator_predicate_proof(), as in the attached draft patch
>> against HEAD. This passes the smell test for me, in the sense that
>> it's an arguably correct and general extension of the proof rules,
>> but it could use more testing.
>
> Thanks for the patch. I agree it handles the case I presented my patch
> for in a more principled manner. So, I've marked the CF entry for my
> patch as Rejected.
Oops, sorry I hadn't actually seen the CF entry before hitting send on
this email. Seeing that Tom intends to attach his patch with this CF
entry, I will leave the entry alone for now.
Thanks,
Amit
