Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Let me unretract it slightly, taking into account Mike's email too...
> How about changing eq (which is new so not breaking backwardsness) to
> '==' ?
> Then we have == <> >= <= > and <
Much better, IMHO.
>> On 7/26/06, Mike Rylander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 7/26/06, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>>> 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'.
>>> 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.
>> Rob properly schooled me in the locale relation modifier (IRC), so I
>> retract this idea entirely. :)