[std-interval] More on interval computations as proofs

Lawrence Crowl Lawrence at Crowl.org
Sun Oct 1 23:06:45 PDT 2006

On 10/1/06, Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond at ens-lyon.fr> wrote:
> To summarize my point on this issue: if I was sure that the next C++
> Standard is going to correctly support multi-threading, I wouldn't have
> suggested the explicit flag approach. I would instead have pushed for
> the implicit flag, as this is what interval users really expect. They
> don't want to carry a flag all around, they just want to clear the flag,
> do all their interval computations, and check the flag at the end.

I think the committee regards multithreading as very important.  It might
even approach the 'delay the standard until we have it' status.  That may
not be necessary, but it is conceivable.

I think the convenience factor could be mostly handled by having the
appropriate operations accept an additional reference parameter to
a user-provided boolean variable.  This way the side effects are clear.
The cost is in naming the variable and passing it on each operation.

Lawrence Crowl

More information about the Std-interval mailing list