Re: @ versus ~, redux

On 2006-09-04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> OK, so if everyone is leaning to #3, the name game remains to be played.
> Do we all agree on this:
>
> "x @> y" means "x contains y"
> "x @< y" means "x is contained in y"

While I suggested something like those, I would also suggest that the
existing operators for inet/cidr be taken into consideration:

x >>= y "x contains y"
x >> y "x strictly contains y"
x <<= y "x is contained in y"
x << y "x is strictly contained in y"

(obviously these don't all necessarily make sense for all types)

These have the advantage of resembling set notation more closely and being
in use in one existing core type.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services