
Boost : 
Subject: Re: [boost] [odeint] Iterator semantics
From: Karsten Ahnert (karsten.ahnert_at_[hidden])
Date: 20120731 10:24:52
On 07/31/2012 11:47 AM, Sergey Mitsyn wrote:
> On 29.07.2012 6:31, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> on Thu Jul 12 2012, Karsten Ahnert <karsten.ahnertATambrosys.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/12/2012 09:52 AM, Mario Mulansky wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20120711 at 23:50 0700, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> IMHO the values of the iterator's underlying time variable would belong
> to "almost" discrete {t0 + n*dt +/ epsilon}, n from Z, where epsilon
> comes from floating point errors and is small. Thus, the distance
> between neighboring values should be no less than (dt2*epsilon).
Shouldn't this be t0 + n*dt +/ n*epsilon? I think the error scales with
N, or even sqrt(N)?
>
> I would say a test 'distance(t1,t2) < dt/2' would be transitive if
> epsilon is less than dt/4
>
> That's of course true while t0 and dt is the same for all iterators
> passed to an algorithm.
>
>>
>> But maybe in my fast skimming I've failed to grasp what's going on.
>>
>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk