Re: Fixing r-tree semantics

"Mark Cave-Ayland"  writes:
> The operators I went for were as follows:

> 	A &<| B - true if A's bounding box overlaps or is below B's bounding
> box
> 	A |&> B - true if B's bounding box overlaps or is above B's bounding
> box
> 	A <<| B - true if A's bounding box is strictly below B's bounding
> box
> 	A |>> B - true if A's bounding box is strictly above B's bounding
> box

Well, I was proposing more or less that but with ^ because of the
precedent of the two existing box_above/box_below operator names.
However, I'm quite happy to adopt your names, since that's probably
a more widely used precedent.  Sold, unless there are objections.

(BTW, it does look a bit odd that the "|" moves around in your names.
But I don't dislike it enough to not follow the precedent.)

> It would be harder for us to change these operators since they already
> exist, but then again it would be useful from a maintenance point of view to
> keep the strategy numbers and operators the same across both
> implementations.

Agreed, I'll use your strategy number assignments too.
		regards, tom lane