From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 11:19:04
I could object to A == A being indeterminate, though, which is the case
with the "forall"-definition.
You could also look at an earlier post by Joel, where he uses, as an
example, "exists"-definitions, which do the contrary, i.e., expand
instead of contract.
I do object in contracting '==' so that ' A == A ' becomes non-true.
IMEHO, that is contracting too far (or, in other words, being too
A naive question: what is the benefit of using tribools in this interval
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Douglas Gregor
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library and comparison operators
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.
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