"=?UTF-8?B?5a2Z6K+X5rWpKOaAneaJjSk=?=" <sunshihao....@alibaba-inc.com> writes:
> we can use regular expressions (<>|!=) to cover "<>" and "!=". There is
> no
> need to have two definitions less_greater and not_equals, because it will
> confuse developer.
> So, we can use only not_equals to cover this operator set.
I do not find this an improvement. Yeah, it's a bit shorter, but it's
less clear; not least because the comment explaining the <>-means-!=
behavior is no longer anywhere near the code that implements that
behavior. It would also get in the way if we ever had reason to treat <>
and != as something other than exact equivalents.
regards, tom lane
