| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
| Date: | 2006-09-04 13:56:07 |
| Message-ID: | 23159.1157378167@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> Assuming the meaning of contains and is contained in is inclusive
> (rather than strict), then we'd have
> a <<= b : a contains b
> a =>> b : a is contained by b
I don't think we can consider that, because we already have << and >>
operators meaning "is left of", "is right of" for (some of) the affected
datatypes. We'd have to start renaming those too, and that very rapidly
turns into a mess.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matteo Beccati | 2006-09-04 13:57:07 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 13:52:08 | Re: @ versus ~, redux |