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 <aruiz@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