On Friday, July 22, 2016, Andrew Gierth <
andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> "David" == David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> 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.
