From: Joel Young (jdy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 13:12:53
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> What is the rationale behind *not* defining
> [a, b] == [c, d] as a == c && b == d
> A <= B A < B || A == B
The key question is how are you going to define less than and still keep
it symmetric with greater than and not have an undefined region?
When you project the rich interval-interval relation space into only
three relations, it is non-trivial to have a nice projection that
maintains a nice definition of equality.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk