[std-interval] Comments on the Interval Standard Proposal
Sylvain.Pion at sophia.inria.fr
Sat Sep 30 23:53:40 PDT 2006
Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
> Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond at ens-lyon.fr> writes:
> | > 26.6.1 Header <interval> synopsis
> | >
> | > Might be better to change the namespace from X_ops to X_comparisons?
> | > Such a change is more in line with the actual content.
> | The name was inspired by the "rel_ops" STL namespace.
> Just a historical note: rel_ops was introduced as a compromise between
> removing the operators it contains completely from the standard and
> what was originally proposed. Many people view it as a "jail", and
> many users don't know about it. I don't know whether that is the case
> for the operators you're proposing. [...]
As I mentioned in my previous mail, I don't think the namespace
solution is perfect for us either, and I count on concepts to improve
it. But we have to wait for this. The idea would be to specify
different concepts whose comparison operators' semantics would match
the ones we have ("certainly" comparisons, versus safe "bool_set"
ones...). You should take a look :)
More information about the Std-interval