Add a DiscreteRangeMap + Set about nodit HOT 3 CLOSED

Also! The touching predicate is different also! Since in a Continuous Map Included(4)-Included(6) would NOT touch Included(7)-Included(10) since their exists the value 6.5 inbetween them, BUT in over the Discrete Integer Domain They WOULD touch since their is no value between 6 and 7!!!

Because of this we should probably rename RangeBounds{Map,Set} to ContinuousRange{Map,Set} to make this clear! That opens the door for a new DiscreteRange{Map,Set} to cater to the Discrete set of properties!

from nodit.

In terms of implementation simplicity for the DiscreteRange datastructures, I think internally representing all bounds as either Unbounded or Included but NOT Excluded would make the implementation much simpler, this could be done quite easily with a helper trait (perhaps an extension to NiceRange) as follows:

enum DiscreteBound<I> {
    Included(I),
    Unbounded,
}

trait NiceDiscreteRange {
    fn start(&self) -> DiscreteBound<I>;
    fn end(&self) -> DiscreteBound<I>;
}

A blanket implementation for any Discrete RangeBounds type would then be trivial.

from nodit.

Upon further thought, It occurs to me that all my use cases for RangeMaps all prefer the Discrete versions over the Continuous versions. Upon this surprising enlightenment I think assuming Continuous-ness was a great mistake. Therefore I think the best course of action would be to Replace the current RangeBounds{Set,Map} behavior with the Discrete version RATHER than maintaining both versions alongside one-another.

Therefore I am closing this in favor of #37

from nodit.