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
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
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 of
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
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 to be
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 enough alone?
