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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(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
