Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 22:31:31


I agree with this case, brought forward by both Dave and Sylvain: that
using intervals in STL in these "relational" positions, such as keys, is
a bit strange.

BUT, the prime reason for keeping the STL convenience implementation of
'<=' being '!>' was in order to be "compatible" with STL, according to
Herve and Guillaume, in spite of the induced "equivalence" not being an
equivalence at all. Thus, I somehow got the idea that it was important.

Now, Sylvain says it is not. I am a bit confused.

So, could someone please give the reason for keeping '<=' as '!>' with
the "completely below" relation, now that the STL argument is no longer
that important?



-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:10 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators

From: "Sylvain Pion" <pion_at_[hidden]>

> But you said :
> > There's also the argument that exact comparison of floating point
> > is usually a waste of time due to rounding errors, so the
> > application
> > 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
> interpretation ?

All I meant was that it might not be worth worrying about having a
*convenient* way to use intervals as associative keys if it's not a very
compelling use-case. How often does anyone use a double as an
associative key? What about std::complex<>?

           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting dave_at_[hidden] *

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at