Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:03 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> Interesting :)  I take it op1..opN (it's opN, not op2, right?) need to
> commute?

Yeah, it's opN.

And they should commute, but my current patch won't stop you. I think I
should stop that though, it's pretty difficult to think of a good
use-case for that and there is all kinds of danger.

> * "generalized-uniqueness constraints"
>     the hyphen disambiguates

I don't like using the word "unique" in the description, I think it only
adds to the confusion.

> * "operator-based constraints"
>     A little math-ier, but talks about the API rather than details of
>     the server implementation.

I like this much better. Maybe "index operator constraints" or "operator
index constraints"?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis