Andrew,
> I'd consider replacing them with something clearer, perhaps @< and @> ?
> (i.e. (a @< b) would mean "a is contained by b" and (a @> b) would mean
> "a contains b")
Ltree uses those operators in that way, I believe.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---
On 2005-06-27, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
> and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
> by every other datatype.
These operators are fundamentally confusing because they give no visual
i
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
> > and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
> > by every other datatype.
> >
> > Is it better to fix this or leave well enou
On Sunday 26 June 2005 21:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
> and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
> by every other datatype.
>
> Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone?
>
ISTM it will have t
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
by every other datatype.
Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone?
I'd say for consistencies sake, it
I just noticed that these two modules define operator @ as "contains"
and operator ~ as "contained by", which is opposite to the meanings used
by every other datatype.
Is it better to fix this or leave well enough alone?
regards, tom lane
---(end o
