Re: @ versus ~, redux

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: @ versus ~, redux
Date: 2006-09-06 14:01:33
Message-ID: 7860.1157551293@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> 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.

Well, I'm reading it as "a comparison operator with @ plastered on the
side of the larger object", not a mirror-image thing. But maybe we
should just stick with @> and <@ as per the ltree precedent, and not
worry about leaving room for strict inclusion tests.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-09-06 14:11:30 Re: @ versus ~, redux
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-06 13:56:46 Re: pgsql: Fix compiler warnings on 64-bit boxes: