Re: FWD: overlaps() bug?

Thomas Lockhart writes:

> Extra pairs of eyes are helpful here; can anyone see that TIME is
> excluded from the types defined for OVERLAPS (which would free us to Do
> It Our Way) or if the spec calls for an implementation different from
> the part of the spec I found (which might be The Right Way)?

No, the current implementation is correct.

The drawback with redefining the time data type to be a circular number
line is that it leads to definitional problems in other areas of the
arithmetic.  For example, what would the result of

time '3:00' - time '23:00'

have to be?

A wrapping time type would probably be useful, but not when it shadows the
standard type.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net