Re: [boost] Re: set arithmetic proposal

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-02 15:33:19

At 09:52 2005-06-02, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>
> >  I argued
> > (unsuccessfully) that when the boost::dynamic_bitset<> was proposed
> > that  the _least_ we could do would be to fix the mis-characterization of
> > operators <= and >= with regards to sets (for those who haven't
> > studied  sets,    {b,c,d} <= {a,b,c,d}  but that's not how it will evaluate
> > with either std::set or boost::dynamic_bitset).
>
>Well, it's true that in boolean algebra, <= can be interpretted to mean
>inclusion. But then, + is also sometimes used to mean OR. I think using the
>operators in this unconventional (as far as C++ is concerned) would just 
>lead to

we're not talking boolean algebra
we're talking sets
where they use the silly sideways U's to show subset
in the Pascal language they used  <= instead (it kinda looks like a U 
tipped 90degrees clockwise)
I'm simply proposing that we use the same operator to mean the same thing
it won't confuse anyone.

>confusion.
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"