On 9/3/12 11:37 AM, Sven Torvinger wrote:
On Monday, 3 September 2012 at 09:01:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/3/12 10:27 AM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
People here are talking about sets, but does Andrei really have sets in
mind? That has consequences if you want 'in' to return a pointer to a
value.
I wanted to define a couple of simple convenience functions. It seems
we've headed into a paralysis of analysis.
Andrei
I would advocate using, a < x < b, this trivially addresses open/closed
intervals etc.
I disagree with the porting from other languages argument... comparing
bool with < > is not a common occurring pattern, and even if there is
such code in the wild, many coding standards would force the use of ()
if using such an expression anyway... so the porting issues would be
minimal.
It's a sensible argument. What about "among"?
Andrei
