From: Sylvain Pion (pion_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 20:54:54
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:40:43PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> > So it would be for applications that don't care about the actual order in
> > the container. It means it would just use the set/map as a dictionnary,
> > like a hash table for example, just to test if an element is there or not,
> > i.e. where the traversal order of the container does not matter to the
> > application.
> > BUT, (that's what David Abrahams already noted, if I understood him
> > correctly)
> I didn't say the preceding, though I would agree with it. I definitely didn't
> say the following, and have no opinion on whether it's true...
> > the should be a high similarity between std::set<interval<double> > and
> > std::set<double>. They should behave roughly the same, at least when the
> > intervals don't overlap.
> ...though it sounds plausible.
I'm sorry for the misinterpretation. In any case, at least I thought it.
But you said :
> There's also the argument that exact comparison of floating point numbers
> is usually a waste of time due to rounding errors, so the application for
> map keys may not be a compelling one.
I wasn't sure what you meant, so that was my interpretation.
Could you clarify what you meant here, in what does it differ from my
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk