Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD 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.
>
> 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.
Doesn't "=<@" represent the ship from the BASIC version of the Star Trek
game from the 70's? :-)
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
