Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ]
>>> x >>= y "x contains y"
>>> x >> y "x strictly contains y"
>>> x <<= y "x is contained in y"
>>> x << y "x is strictly contained in y"
> (I'd be fine with Andrew's versions. I probably picked them up from
> his ip4r code, now that I think about it.)
Actually, I have another objection to those names, which is that they
look too much like C bit-shift operators to me ...
> Well, I do have suggestions for those, too :)
> r1 </ r2 r1 is to the left of r2 (r1 is before r2)
> r1 /> r2 r1 is to the right of r2 (r1 is after r2)
And do you have extensions of those for "is below"/"is above"?
This way madness lies. Let's sync the containment operators, not
start relabeling every operator in sight.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
