| 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 05:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbqA_UUmhSgfyuO46G=dYhzh+Th4gWirjHb1A=m6DLC9Q@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:
>
> Prima facie, if you were told "numbers in the range 0-10", would you
> really think, "ah, they *really* mean 0 through 9"?
>
>
I would indeed default to both endpoints of the range being inclusive. I
also begin counting at one, not zero. I’ve long gotten past being
surprised when computer science and my defaults don’t agree. Choices are
made and documented and that works for me.
As for this, documentation I never really gave the wording a second thought
before, though I can definitely understand the complaint and like the
somewhat wordier, but less linguistically challenging, phrasing the OP
suggested (Boundary point, especially by itself, is not an improvement).
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2021-10-16 08:31:56 | Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ??? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-16 05:23:51 | Re: "two time periods with only an endpoint in common do not overlap" ??? |