FW: [std-interval] New draft available (aka "Revision 1.5")

Kreinovich, Vladik vladik at utep.edu
Fri Oct 13 14:35:07 PDT 2006

Dear Ron, Many thanks for godo comment. 

Re complex intervals: There are several good implementations of complex
intervals, the problem is that some of these implementations use Rump's
idea of having a center and a radius, while others assume that a complex
interval is a pair of an interval describing the real part and an
interval describing the imaginary part, i.e., geometrically, a box.
There are also several different operations with complex intervals. 

We had a lot of discussions re operations with notmal intervals, where
most operations are clear. Based on this experience, I think that
complex intervals are probably not yet ready for standardization. 

-----Original Message-----
From: std-interval-bounces at compgeom.poly.edu
[mailto:std-interval-bounces at compgeom.poly.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Avitzur
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:50 PM
To: For discussions concerning the C++ standardization of intervals
Subject: Re: [std-interval] New draft available (aka "Revision 1.5")


Pages 5,8:
Where it mentions integral and decimal floating point types, 
set<interval> and valarray<interval>, consider also mentioning 
complex intervals. Though it is outside the scope of this proposal, 
complex<interval<double>> might be arguably useful. It happens to 
compile without error the last time I checked, though the standard 
does not require std::complex to work with user-defined types. Is 
this a future direction? Is the implementation too difficult? Are 
there  existing implementations of complex intervals? Is the problem 
too poorly understood for standardization? If 
complex<interval<double>> happens to compile and generate apparently 
useful code in an implementation, is there any reason to warn a naive 
user against it?

Best regards,

Ron Avitzur
Std-interval mailing list
Std-interval at compgeom.poly.edu

More information about the Std-interval mailing list