From: Guillaume Melquiond (gmelquio_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-03 14:56:56
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David Bergman wrote:
> Guillaume wrote:
> > You are right, there is two interpretation of <=. And it was also one
> of the conflicting?
> > point during the design phase of the library.
> > First, you can say that [a,b] <= [c,d] is true iff it is true for each
> pair of elements.
> > But you can also say that [a,b] <= [c,d] is the same as !([a,b] >
> [c,d]). And unfortunately, > this interpretation is not equivalent to
> the previous one.
> My comment: no, you can not say that (partial order)
Please excuse my previous mail, my answer was a bit hasty. You were right.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk