On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:42:39PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:32 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> >
> > >> > * Circles, Boxes and other geometric datatypes defined
> > >> > "overlaps" to include touching shapes. So SELECT circle
> > >> > '((0,0), 1)' && circle '((2,0),1)'; is true, which is fairly
> > >> > strange and makes those datatypes very counter intuitive.
> > >> > Considering they are instructional aids, this is bad.
> > >>
> > >> You're approximately twenty years too late to propose changing
> > >> that, even if it were clearly a good idea which I doubt.
> > >
> > > Possibly. We should at least document that.
> >
> > Basically, what you feel is missing is documentation that if two
> > shapes share one or more points they are considered to overlap;
> > there is no requirement that they share an area?
>
> Yes, for most people touching != overlap. So it just looks like a
> bug.
I don't know which people you've surveyed, but at least in my math
classes, one point in common was sufficient for an overlap. I'd be
happy to write up something that makes this clear.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate