Re: operator exclusion constraints

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:12 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> 
> > Either of those names are fine with me, too. The current name is a
> > somewhat shortened version of the name "operator-based exclusion
> > constraints", so we can also just use that name. Or, just "exclusion
> > constraints".
> 
> (exclusion constraints)++

Ok, I guess this is another issue that requires consensus.

Note: this is purely for documentation, release notes, and user-visible
error messages. This does not have any impact on the syntax, I think
we've got a strong consensus on that already and I would prefer not to
break that discussion open again.

1. Operator Exclusion Constraints (current)
2. Generic/Generalized/General Exclusion Constraints
3. Exclusion Constraints (has the potential to cause confusion with
constraint_exclusion)

Regards,Jeff Davis