On 7/26/06, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Mike Taylor wrote:
> >Robert Sanderson writes:
> > > While we're changing relation semantics, I'd like to propose that
> > > <> be deprecated in favour of 'ne' for not equal to, to be
> > > consistent with 'eq' for equality.
> >I am not so fond of this; can you say more in favour of it?
> It seems strange to me that equality is 'eq' (a string) but inequality
> is a combination of the special characters < and >.
> More consistent to me would be == and !=, == and <>, or 'eq' and 'ne'.
> But 'eq' and '<>' seems similar to having '>' and 'lessThan'...
> understandable but inconsistent.
And I'd personally like to see full consistency along the lines of
'lt', 'le', 'gt' and 'ge'. Or, perhaps, the addition of those
relations to text semantics instead of numeric.
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development