On 09/16/2011 10:36 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/16/11 3:16 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/16/2011 09:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/16/11 1:24 PM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:14:24 +0200, Jonathan M Davis
I think that that's up for debate. I would fully expect a min/max
function to
be using a comparator function, which means using a binary predicate.
This seems weird to me. min already has a binary predicate - a < b.
This predicate is what defines min, any other predicate would make it
a different function - usually reduce, unless we're talking about
argMin (does argReduce make any kind of sense?).
That said, there are cases where a < b is not enough, owing to some
types not having a nice and simple comparison. Hence, binary
predicates should also be allowed. I just feel that in the general
case, binary predicates dilute the meaning of min/max. Would you
consider this code good?
min!"a > b"(range);
That's not min, that's max. More:
min!"a.member1 < b.member2"(range);
Again, it's not min, it's something else.
This is a good argument. The "something else" is "extremum"
The "something else" is a "least element of a total order"
Nope, because not the entire set is presented for the computation.
Andrei
The range defines the entire set we are looking at. What is your point?
