Re: @ versus ~, redux

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>   
>> How about?:
>> 4. do 1+3, i.e. flip the GIN operators to keep core consistency, but 
>> deprecate the operators for both contrib and core. Something more 
>> visually like set ops would be ideal.
>>     
>
> If we're going to adopt new preferred names, I see no reason to support
> the old confusing names for operators that have never existed before
> 8.2.  There is no backward-compatibility argument to be made there.
>
>     
>   

You're right. I misread your original proposal.  I vote for #3.

cheers

andrew