Subject: Re: [boost] [odeint] Iterator semantics
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-28 22:31:44
on Thu Jul 12 2012, Karsten Ahnert <karsten.ahnert-AT-ambrosys.de> wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 09:52 AM, Mario Mulansky wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 23:50 -0700, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Karsten Ahnert <karsten.ahnert_at_[hidden]
>>>> On 07/12/2012 12:39 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Karsten Ahnert
>>> Well, you can define operator== and operator!= however you want, and some
>>> definitions will make sense and some won't (e.g., non-/anti-symmetry).
>>> *All* I've been trying to do here is coax out of you *why* you're defining
>>> operator== and operator!= this way :)
>>> (Especially, with my limited understanding of the application, when it
>>> seems time1 op time2 would do what you want, or perhaps a fuzzy version
>>> taking into account the time step.)
>> I agree that it1 != it2 should be implemented in the sense of
>> t1+-dt/2 != t2+-dt/2
> So you are checking for overlap. This looks good and I think it should work.
If I'm understanding correctly what you're saying, making two iterators
equal if their underlying time ranges overlap would be "evil." Your
equality operator would not be transitive, and thus not an equivalence
relation, and therefore you would not have implemented a conforming
iterator, and you'd have no right to expect an algorithm that works on
iterators to work on yours.
But maybe in my fast skimming I've failed to grasp what's going on.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk