Date: 2003-03-27 15:56:18
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gennaro Prota [mailto:gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]]
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:01:12 -0500, scleary_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Well, if we are really going to discuss such quibbles, I would also
> change "zero" to "equiv" because that's the usual "term" used for
> strict weak ordering. And I would avoid constructs like
> But there are more important points I think; first of all this: if all
> I can see "from the outside" is whether v_== minus [note: this is
> 'plus' in the original code] why keeping three states internally?
To allow for short-circuiting any future comparisions. The three states,
whatever their names, mean:
1) The result is known to be true; no further comparisions are necessary
2) The result is known to be false; no further comparisions are necessary
3) The result is unknown; further comparisions are necessary.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk