> >> 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. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
