On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane 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.
Initially it seemed strange to me because the @ switches sides but the
operator is not symmetrical.
I see what you mean. Standard <= and >= syntax, with an @ on the side of
the container. Now I'll be able to remember it at least, so I'm really
fine with anything.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
