You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Still I wonder if that could be generalized to better match the mathematical needs:
Interval borders being closed or open.
Actually one has to decide whether borders are all closed or all open (MERGE_TOUCHING)
As kind of syntactical mean for not-dense (integral) types T.
If for every element of type T you can tell the nearest smaller/ larger element
(i.e. T is not dense), you can take that for defining an open interval border.
(E.g. for C floating points: std::nextafter())
But if T doesn't provide an implementation of nextafter()...
Do you think you might generalize in that way?
(The MERGE_TOUCHING thing will be obsolet then).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Very useful indeed!
Still I wonder if that could be generalized to better match the mathematical needs:
Interval borders being closed or open.
Actually one has to decide whether borders are all closed or all open (MERGE_TOUCHING)
As kind of syntactical mean for not-dense (integral) types T.
If for every element of type T you can tell the nearest smaller/ larger element
(i.e. T is not dense), you can take that for defining an open interval border.
(E.g. for C floating points: std::nextafter())
But if T doesn't provide an implementation of nextafter()...
Do you think you might generalize in that way?
(The MERGE_TOUCHING thing will be obsolet then).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: