Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-06-16T04:50:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On tis, 2011-06-14 at 15:38 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: >> BTW, there's actually precedent for a commutator of "~", namely >> "@". Some of the geometric types (polygon, box, circle, point, >> path) use "~" as a commutator for "@" (which stands for "contains"). > I wouldn't have a problem with naming the reverse operator "@". We deprecated those names for the geometric operators largely because there wasn't any visual correlation between the commutator pairs. I can't see introducing the same pairing for regex operators if we already decided the geometric case was a bad idea. regards, tom lane