Re: @ versus ~, redux

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
> > On 2006-09-04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Do we all agree on this:
> >> 
> >> "x @> y" means "x contains y"
> >> "x @< y" means "x is contained in y"
> 
> 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 yx =<@ y        y is contained in or equals y

It seems more natural to me because the operators are symmetrical. Am I
missing the mnemonic value of your form?

Regards,Jeff Davis