Re: @ versus ~, redux

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
        regards, tom lane