On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:05:10 +1000, Chris Trengove wrote > "Jeff Garland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sure, can do. What would you call it: merge_inclusive, earliest_latest, > rename > > merge to union and call it merge, something else? > > Yes, the hardest thing is to think of a name. I don't think you can rename > merge to union, since I suspect you chose merge originally because "union" > is a keyword. In strict set terms, the proposed new function really
I think it is ok b/c it is a member function, but that's a good point. > is the union, whereas the existing merge is something else, a sort > of "conditional" union. I see what you are thinking, it isn't like a normal set union, which is probably why all called it merge... > Maybe you can leave merge as is, and call the new thing simple_union, > or union_with, to get around the keyword problem. I think I favour > simple_union. I don't think the it is technically a union because the result draws in points in the time period that aren't part of either of the initial periods. Anyway I wrote the code as merge_inclusive so unless you have a major objection I'll leave it that way pending a better idea... Jeff _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
