Re: @ versus ~, redux

Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD 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.
> 
> 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.

Doesn't "=<@" represent the ship from the BASIC version of the Star Trek
game from the 70's?  :-)

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +