You are very welcome :) What about not an operator but a regular constructor for the interval thing? Something like: Between Double Double
Nevertheless, I think :&: is not bad at all. You can leave it as it is. Best, On 31 March 2010 14:57, Alberto Ruiz <ar...@um.es> wrote: > Hi Ozgur, > > You are right, the operators are misleading. I will change them to ":<=:" > and ":>=:". And perhaps the symbol ":&:" for the interval bound should also > be improved... > > Thanks for your suggestion! > Alberto > > > Ozgur Akgun wrote: > >> Hi everyone and Alberto, >> >> Numeric.LinearProgramming[1] provides a very nice interface for solving LP >> optimisation problems, and the well-known simplex algorithm itself. I must >> say I quite liked the interface it provides, simple yet sufficient. >> >> But, to my understanding, there is a confusion in the constructor name >> (symbols actually) for constraints. In LP, one needs to write constraints in >> the form of ==, <=, or >= only. You /cannot /write a constraint using strict >> inequalities. The algorithm has nothing wrong, but I guess it would be >> better to have constructor symbols right. See [2] >> >> If this is a design choice, I think it should explicitly be stated. >> >> Regards, >> >> [1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hmatrix-glpk >> [2] >> http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/hmatrix-glpk/0.1.0/doc/html/Numeric-LinearProgramming.html#t%3ABound >> >> -- >> Ozgur Akgun >> > > -- Ozgur Akgun
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
