From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | 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 03:00:10 |
Message-ID: | 1438.1157511610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-06 03:09:10 | Re: Win32 hard crash problem |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-09-06 01:24:58 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |