From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 10:48:16
In the 3-state relation it should mean "possibly not reflexive" as in "A
RelOp B yields something different from 'true'"
In fact, I was objecting to the 2-state definition, of
[a1, a2] RelOp [b1, b2] iff forall a1 <= a <= a2, b1 <= b <=
b2: a RelOp b
Where "irreflexive" really means something...
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Douglas Gregor
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators
On Friday 06 September 2002 11:27 am, David Bergman wrote:
> Please, do not do this to the poor '==', it did not deserve to be
> irreflexive ;-)
By irreflexive, do you mean 'not reflexive' or 'possibly not reflexive'?
not convinced that applying the word 'reflexive' to a 3-state relation
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk