Re: @ versus ~, redux

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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