Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to