> > > > "x @< y" means "x is contained in y"
> > >
> > > ltree <@ ltree
> >
> > If you consider ltree entries to be sets containing all their
children
> > then those sound consistent.
Now we get to decide whether "<@" was better than the now proposed "@<"
:-)
I like <@. (or we stay clear by using the inet ops)
Andreas
