RE: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 10:18:44

I definitely vote for having the lexicographic ordering being the
default one, for all us STLish developers. It should be noted, and
understood, that the purpose of that ordering is to enforce a total
ordering for STL and similar purposes, and is in no way a
domain-specific statement about intervals for arithmetics.

If developers want domain-relevant relations, he/she should define them
(or Boost.IntervalArithmetic could provide some useful ones, as given by
Joel's disection)

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:50 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators

From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]>

> I didn't say I needed a *particular* order; what is important is the 
> _ability_ to use it as a key.  Yes, one can define one each time one 
> needs it (I used the lexicographical compare). Similar arguments would

> apply for pointers (in general) also, but it is much more convenient 
> to say std::map<T*, U>, than std::map<T*, U, MyCompare> when the exact

> ordering MyCompare doesn't really matter.

The question remains, then, which intervals shall the ordering consider
to be equivalent? Is the lexicographic ordering adequate?

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting dave_at_[hidden] *
http://www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost