>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
Robert> I don't think so, either. The most someone might want to doRobert> is make ==> work wherever => does now, but
Iwouldn't want toRobert> start monkeying with that without some input from AndrewRobert> Gierth; and I don't think it's
astop-ship issue for 9.0.
I'd really like to find a better operator name than ==>. But I'm not
convinced one exists.
While I don't like the inconsistency between ==> or whatever and the use
of => in type input and output, I regard the text representation as being
much harder to change safely, since client code will be parsing it. In this
case the inconsistency seems like a much smaller problem than changing the
text representation.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)