Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types

On Friday, July 22, 2016, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:

> >>>>> "David" == David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:;>> 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.