Re: @ versus ~, redux

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 23:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis  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