Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Perhaps something like
> Operator Class
> and
> Data Type Class
> Data type classes happens to involve operator classes but it sounds like
> you're looking for them to specify other behaviours of how data types
> inter-relate than just their operator classes anyways.
Well, actually I think of this more as something that tells me how a
bunch of *operators* relate. As an example, "=" and friends over the
string datatypes will be one group, and "~=~" and friends will be
another group over the very same types. So to me "data type class"
would really miss the point.
The alternatives I'd been thinking about were "operator set" and
"operator collection", but I don't really see any advantage over
"operator group" for either ...
>> On the same grounds, I'd object to calling schemas "directories" or
>> "folders", unless they could be nested.
> (Actually that's a bit of an odd case since real-world folders aren't
> generally nestable
True, ya got me ;-)
regards, tom lane