Subject: Re: [boost] [ICL] some improvement proposals
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-25 04:02:32
2011/5/25 Denis <comp.lib.boost.devel_at_[hidden]>:
> Hi Joachim.
> According to wikipedia
> article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)#Classification_of_intervals we
> both are wrong.
> Just right_open or left_closed assume that the other end is unbounded.
>> (1) I tried to consider common usage of naming of intervals that is
>> known from math. There seems to tendency to assume closedness as
>> default, while openness is indicated by naming:
>> [x, y] an interval (also closed interval)
>> [x, y) a right open interval
>> (x, y] a left open interval
>> (x, y) an open interval.
I am wondering how you arrive at this conclusion. I consulted the wiki
page, when I decided about naming of intervals. It was different then.
I think the current ICL-naming is consistent with the terminology on
the English wiki page today. The German page explicitly has the same
usage of naming and "defaults" as ICL (expect for German wording, of
course). I don't think renaming considerations for icl::interval are
of any use. Changing them would definitely break existing code and add
-- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk