Re: @ versus ~, redux

Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net> writes:
> [ andrew@supernews wrote: ]
>>> x >>= y  "x contains y"
>>> x >> y   "x strictly contains y"
>>> x <<= y  "x is contained in y"
>>> x << y   "x is strictly contained in y"

> (I'd be fine with Andrew's versions. I probably picked them up from  
> his ip4r code, now that I think about it.)

Actually, I have another objection to those names, which is that they
look too much like C bit-shift operators to me ...

> Well, I do have suggestions for those, too :)

> r1 </ r2    r1 is to the left of r2 (r1 is before r2)
> r1 /> r2    r1 is to the right of r2 (r1 is after r2)

And do you have extensions of those for "is below"/"is above"?

This way madness lies.  Let's sync the containment operators, not
start relabeling every operator in sight.
        regards, tom lane