Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 04:23:55

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

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

A year ago, I often needed in some of programs then to say

  std::map<double, T> fun;

(Yes, I know what comparaison on double means with respect to reals.).

| What about std::complex<>?

Same here.

-- Gaby

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