|
Boost : |
From: Joel Young (jdy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 15:59:25
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> I think it could be refreshening to discuss the relations (orderings
> and not) we would want on intervals, without using operator
> overloading, and then, if at all, decide to use those "well-known"
> operators for properly sound relations. That way, we could avoid
> infective discussions based on one's personal relationship with those
> specific syntactic operators ;-)
Amen! Feedback time... are my diagrams useful to anyone for
visualizing these relations?
From: "David Bergman" <davidb_at_[hidden]>
> I do assume that '>' is defined as the symmetrically dual relation to
> '<', they do look mirrored, so that is often the semantics I attach to
> them...
which is very interesting for lexicographic ordering ;-)
Joel
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk