> >> The existing geometric containment tests seem to be nonstrict, so
if
> >> we wanted to leave room to add strict ones later, it might be best
to
> >> settle on
> >>
> >> x @>= y x contains or equals y
> >> x <=@ y x is contained in or equals y
> >>
> >> reserving @> and <@ for future strict comparison operators.
>
> > At first glace, it seems more intuitive to me to do:
>
> > x @>= y x contains or equals y
> > x =<@ y y is contained in or equals y
>
> Hm, I've never seen anyone spell "less than or equal to" as
> "=<", so I'm not sure where you derive "=<@" from? Not
> saying "no", but the other seems clearer to me.
Yes, but to me too =<@ seems more natural since we started with @> and
<@.
Tom, your argument would more match your original @> and @<, but then it
would imply @>= and @<=, imho.
Andreas