Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???
Date: 2021-10-16 04:35:04
Message-ID: CAKFQuwZX6f9kpE7uQRk-aU0x0Wu2FGCTy3fDmk0QvXOWd32HyQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Friday, October 15, 2021, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> The numeric ranges 0-10 and 10-19 overlap, just as the time ranges
> 00:01:00-00:00:02:00 overlaps 00:02:00-00:03:00.
>
> *It's the programmer's responsibility* to say what s/he really means, not
> for "the system" to make that choice.
>

The system has canonical representation for discrete element range. The
upper bound is exclusive, the lower bound is inclusive. All the docs are
doing is stating the obvious consequence of that rule.

The “numeric range 0-10” is under specified and thus, as written, one must
abide by the rule, implying [). The programmer is free to fully specify
their range to have the upper bound inclusive, but canonicalization would
then just change it to be “0-11” with the [) implied.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2021-10-16 04:52:48 Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2021-10-16 04:08:30 Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ???