 |
 |
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 > http://open-ils.org > -- Mike Rylander [log in to unmask] GPLS -- PINES Development Database Developer http://open-ils.org