Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 10:36:41

On Friday 06 September 2002 11:18 am, David Bergman wrote:
> 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)

How do developers get those domain-relevant relations used if there is already 
a default set of relations?

I understand the reasoning against the std::less specialization, but I still 
wonder if it is the right way to go in this case. The std::less 
specialization based on the lexicographical ordering gives the 'STLish 
developers' the ability to stick intervals into maps & sets, but leaves the 
door open for other semantics to be used for the actual relational operators.

        Doug