Re: left and overleft/notright revisited: why !>> and !<< might be poor names

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: William White <bwhite(at)frognet(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: left and overleft/notright revisited: why !>> and !<< might be poor names
Date: 2004-04-05 22:39:54
Message-ID: 16258.1081204794@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

William White <bwhite(at)frognet(dot)net> writes:
> Consider the empty interval (n,n) (any empty interval will do, they're
> all the same empty set),

I don't think that's the case. [0,0) and [1,1) are certainly
distinguishable given the normal machine representation of intervals.
If you use a mathematical model that says they're not distinguishable,
that says to me that you chose the wrong model --- especially when the
model leads you into logical difficulties that need not (and do not)
exist in the actual implementation.

My feeling about it is [0,0) << [1,1) but not vice versa.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2004-04-05 22:44:51 Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
Previous Message Will Trillich 2004-04-05 21:38:56 set timestamp oddness