From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
Date: | 2006-09-04 15:29:03 |
Message-ID: | 24578.1157383743@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> [ andrew(at)supernews wrote: ]
>>> 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"
> (I'd be fine with Andrew's versions. I probably picked them up from
> his ip4r code, now that I think about it.)
Actually, I have another objection to those names, which is that they
look too much like C bit-shift operators to me ...
> Well, I do have suggestions for those, too :)
> r1 </ r2 r1 is to the left of r2 (r1 is before r2)
> r1 /> r2 r1 is to the right of r2 (r1 is after r2)
And do you have extensions of those for "is below"/"is above"?
This way madness lies. Let's sync the containment operators, not
start relabeling every operator in sight.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-04 15:34:27 | Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 beta |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-09-04 15:21:50 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |