On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:11AM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jun 11, 2006, at 5:15 , Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> >I think you might want to reconsider your design. It works well for
> >dates
> >because sets of dates are made of of isolated points and such sets are
> >both open and closed. If you are using time, I think it will be
> >more convenient
> >to use a closed, open representation.
>
> Under design I proposed, closed-closed and closed-open are just two
> different representations of the same range: to the commonly used
> notation, the closed-open range [p1, p2) is equivalent to the closed-
> closed range [p1, next(p2)], where next() is the successor function.
Why try messing aronud with a successor function when you can just use <
instead of <= ?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
