Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Date: 2011-06-16 04:39:17
Message-ID: 1308199157.30501.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tis, 2011-06-14 at 15:38 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> BTW, there's actually precedent for a commutator of "~", namely
> "@". Some of the geometric types (polygon, box, circle, point,
> path) use "~" as a commutator for "@" (which stands for "contains").

I wouldn't have a problem with naming the reverse operator "@".

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-06-16 04:40:36 Re: [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-06-16 04:38:14 Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY