Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
From: John Reid (j.reid_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-04 09:19:13

John Reid wrote:
> 
> 
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>>> So it might be better to have
>>> both continuous and discrete intervals as right-open by default and 
>>> to allow
>>> some mechanism whereby the user can choose to allow different runtime 
>>> bound
>>> types if they need them.
>>
>> I agree, that right-open intervals are suitable as default. But I am
>> afraid, for the continuous case, we can not guarantee that all
>> operations can maintain such an invariant. BTW existing interval
>> libraries e.g. boost::numeric::interval or FILIB++ work with closed
>> intervals. Subtract a closed interval from an interval set with
>> continuous domain_type  and you need open bounds.
> 
> I was suggesting that your design could feature sets/maps that only had 
> right-open intervals. This would be the default in both continuous and 
> discrete domains. If the user really wanted to use all the different 
> interval bound types over a continuous domain then perhaps he/she could 
> choose to do so via a template parameter. This would probably be a rare 
> use case though.
> 

I should just say that I think all the invariants can be maintained in 
sets of right-open intervals. Please correct me if I'm wrong.