From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | <andrew(at)supernews(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
Date: | 2006-09-06 08:21:41 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579014DC301@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> The existing geometric containment tests seem to be nonstrict, so
if
> >> we wanted to leave room to add strict ones later, it might be best
to
> >> settle on
> >>
> >> x @>= y x contains or equals y
> >> x <=@ y x is contained in or equals y
> >>
> >> reserving @> and <@ for future strict comparison operators.
>
> > At first glace, it seems more intuitive to me to do:
>
> > x @>= y x contains or equals y
> > x =<@ y y is contained in or equals y
>
> Hm, I've never seen anyone spell "less than or equal to" as
> "=<", so I'm not sure where you derive "=<@" from? Not
> saying "no", but the other seems clearer to me.
Yes, but to me too =<@ seems more natural since we started with @> and
<@.
Tom, your argument would more match your original @> and @<, but then it
would imply @>= and @<=, imho.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-09-06 08:33:37 | Re: Win32 hard crash problem |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2006-09-06 08:13:37 | Re: pgsql: Fix compiler warnings on 64-bit boxes: |