From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-02 13:06:48
In fact, paragraph 3 of the Comparisons section seems to give an
(implicit) opening for partially ordered types, since the whole "for
all" argument would not be needed, were the type totally ordered; one
would only need to compare the end points.
I agree that there would be usage of this interval abstraction without
all the arithmetic operations.
One question: should we have iterators over an interval? I know it sound
a bit Pythonish, but it would be nice to traverse (at least discrete)
And, if "numbers" imply types with the given arithmetic operations
defined, then one should definitely split the headers into "interval"
and "interval_arithemtics", so we could use (partially) ordered types
for interval operations such as comparison, slicing and traversal.
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:41 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Formal Review for Interval Library beginning
Ok, here first couple notes/question for the authors:
1. What is the purpose in uniting 3 orthogonal policies parameters in
one bottle. It does not buy you anything in default case. It still would
be interval<T> whether you have 1 combined policy or 3 independent ones.
While in custom interval you require additional structure to define. It
could be even more convenient would you use named template parameters.
2. Presence both assign( l, u ) and set( l, u ) in public interface is
confusing. Maybe you could have only one method assign that in debug
mode is using checking implementation while in production non-checking.
In general you should at least try for conforming compilers to put
everything after "// the following is for internal use only" into
private section of the class
3. "// The following needs to be defined in the class body for VC++.".
May be it should put it in ifdef guards?
4. Why do you need set_empty and set_whole. Why could not you use "=
interval::empty()" and "= interval whole()"
5. interval free function interface/implementation IMO should be split
up in several independent headers. For example In many cases I may not
need trigonometric, transcendental and so forth functions over
intervals. It may also allow to minimize dependency on STL headers cmath
6. traits_type is in public interface. Should it be there?
7. All rounding staff does not defined as static. This makes you to
write something like this:
typename Traits::rounding rnd;
... rnd.sub_down ...
Is there reason why are they nor static?
1. Macro BOOST_INTERVAL_DEFINE_OPERATOR_2 better be named
BOOST_INTERVAL_DECLARE_OPERATOR_2. The same for
BOOST_INTERVAL_DEFINE_COMPARISON. Also you probably what to undef them
after use. 2. Boost recommend to use T const instead of const T 3. why
less specialization is under if 0? 4. using std::log and myriads of
other symbols is all over rounding headers. What about the compilers
that does not put the into std namespace? 5. Why interval implementation
is located in utility.hpp header. It may be misleading. 6. There are
some commented lines. Since we are using cvs may be it worth to clean
1. Heading: May be it's worth to name the page Interval library (or
something like this) and put reference to the definition separately
somewhere. 2. On top of the page right under he header there is TOC. IMO
it is aligned a bit strangely and it would look better if you delete
<center> tag 3. Introduction, statement 2: "It consists of a single
header". It is not true. 4. Introduction, statement 3: "Traits is a
After long discussions here I (and I hope others) came to very
strict definition of what is trait and what is policy and in which case
which one is used.
Trait: type property that is inheritably belong to/defined by the
IOW for a given type T there only one value/definition of the
trait/property. Example numeric_traits: for given type T it uniquely
defines max(), min() and so on. Accordingly traits are never a template
Policy: something that is orthogonal to the type definition. IOW for a
given type T you could *choose* the policy you want to use with it.
Example: allocator. Accordingly policies are always a template
parameters. Since there is no other way to let the component know about
This long description above is presented to ground my opinion that
you template parameters should be names Policies not Traits AFAICT 5.
interval is parameterized by type T. But you never rigorously specified
the requirement for this type (and it should be somewhere on top). Maybe
some kind of concept checking would also be useful. 6. More on item 5.
The first statement in "Interval Arithmetic" section says
that: "An interval is a pair of numbers ".
IMO this imply that only intrinsic (plus probably something like big_int
mind) types supposed to be used with interval? Since it is allowed to
use any totally ordered type ( or maybe even partially ordered, I did
not get why I need total order always; "due to the definition of an
interval" does not clear enough) with interval. I think that the above
statement would better be phrased something like: "An interval is a pair
of ordered values". Appropriate changes everywhere else.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk