Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm having trouble avoiding the conclusion that we're trying to shove
> a round peg into a square hole.  The idea that we have to have a
> commutator for every operator just because we don't handle left and
> right symmetrically sits poorly with me.  I can't really argue with
> your statement that it's the easiest way to address Florian's gripe,
> but because it almost surely is.  But it still feels like a kludge.
> The syntax foo = ANY(bar) is really quite a poorly-designed syntax,
> because the top-level operation is really "ANY", and it has three
> arguments: foo, =, bar.  If the SQL committee had standardized on
> ANY(foo = $0, bar) or some such thing we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.

[ shrug... ]  Take it up with the committee.  The syntax is what it is,
and we should select our operators to fit it, not vice versa.
        regards, tom lane