Re: record identical operator - Review

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 06:31:38PM -0400, Steve Singer wrote:
> I think there is agreement that better (as in more obscure)
> operators than === and !== need to be picked and we need to find a
> place in the user-docs to warn users of the behaviour of this
> operators. Hannu has proposed
>
> *==* "binary equal, surely very equal by any other definition as wall"
> !==? "maybe not equal" -- "binary inequal, may still be equal by
> other comparison methods"

It's a pity operators must be non-alpha and can't be named. Something
like:

SELECT foo OPERATOR("byte_equivalent") bar;

is simultaneously obscure, yet clear.

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer