Thread: Sigh, another contrib/cube and contrib/seg problem
I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
by every other datatype.
Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone?
regards, tom lane
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains" > and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used > by every other datatype. > > Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone? I'd say for consistencies sake, it should be fixed, but that will break 'backwards compatibility' for anyone using it ... :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
> and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
> by every other datatype.
>
> Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone?
>
ISTM it will have to be fixed eventually.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:23, Tom Lane wrote: > > I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains" > > and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used > > by every other datatype. > > > > Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone? > > > > ISTM it will have to be fixed eventually. We will mention the fix in the release notes if the commit message mentions it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On 2005-06-27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains" > and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used > by every other datatype. These operators are fundamentally confusing because they give no visual indication as to which operand is the "larger" one. I'd consider replacing them with something clearer, perhaps @< and @> ? (i.e. (a @< b) would mean "a is contained by b" and (a @> b) would mean "a contains b") -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
Andrew, > I'd consider replacing them with something clearer, perhaps @< and @> ? > (i.e. (a @< b) would mean "a is contained by b" and (a @> b) would mean > "a contains b") Ltree uses those operators in that way, I believe. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco