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:
> > >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.
> > Rob
> 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. :)
> Mike Rylander
> [log in to unmask]
> GPLS -- PINES Development
> Database Developer
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development