On mån, 2011-11-21 at 10:30 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I like the idea of being able to define more flexible foreign keys,
> but are we gilding the lily here? The proposed solution is really
> quite specific to the nuances of arrays. Perhaps there is a more
> general expression based syntax that leaves the door open for other
> types conditions such as dealing fields dependent on other fields?
Yeah, basically you'd just need a contains and/or is-contained-by
operator between the two types.
