From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
Date: | 2006-09-06 14:01:33 |
Message-ID: | 7860.1157551293@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> Hm, I've never seen anyone spell "less than or equal to" as
>> "=<", so I'm not sure where you derive "=<@" from? Not
>> saying "no", but the other seems clearer to me.
> Yes, but to me too =<@ seems more natural since we started with @> and <@.
> Tom, your argument would more match your original @> and @<, but then it
> would imply @>= and @<=, imho.
Well, I'm reading it as "a comparison operator with @ plastered on the
side of the larger object", not a mirror-image thing. But maybe we
should just stick with @> and <@ as per the ltree precedent, and not
worry about leaving room for strict inclusion tests.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-06 14:11:30 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-06 13:56:46 | Re: pgsql: Fix compiler warnings on 64-bit boxes: |