[postgis-devel] Death to Pointless Operators

[Paul Ramsey]

Would '=' be equivalent to ST_Equals, ST_OrderingEquals or bounding-box-equals?
P

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Paragon Corporation <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
> :
>
>>> If you get rid of anything you should really get rid of that ~ -- its
>>> just confusing because it means something completely different as
>>> Nicklas mentioned a while ago (when you are talking about the
>>> built-in polygon/point and I think even pgsphere --
>>
>> ~ is the opposite of @. But it can be any symbol we like. How about !@ ?
>>
>
>> Actually that would be a bad symbol pairing (the equals/notequals parallel
> is not correct, A = B does not imply B != A). A better one would be if we
> used >> and << since they are commutative relations.
>> But that would break backwards compatibility which above you are telling
> me is a big deal for the operators that people don't actually use!
>
>> So, for sheer conservative curmudgoenliness, I would suggest we leave ~
> and @ as they are.
>
>
> Like I said if we can I would prefer to overload the = operator like ltree
> does so I don't have to go around explaining why we have ~ and = which mean
> the same thing but one uses an index and one doesn't.
> Or you think there is a benefit there of keeping them separate?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/ltree.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>