Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 10:45 -0400, Tom Lane 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.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
