From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 11:07:38
On Friday 06 September 2002 11:48 am, David Bergman wrote:
> 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...
Fair enough. I'm interested only in the 3-state definition. The 2-state
definition is just narrowing indeterminate->false.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk