On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:14:16PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 01:23:12PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 03:30:49PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> [...]
> > > + if (!merge) {
> > > + errno = EEXIST;
> > > + return expr_binary_error(msgs, lei->expr, new->expr,
> > > + "conflicting intervals specified");
> > > }
> >
> > Not your fault, but I think this check is actually useless given that
> > the overlap check happens before (unless you consider to consolidate
> > the insertion and the overlap checks in ei_insert).
>
> That's interesting, indeed. What's more interesting is how
> interval_cmp() works: I assumed it would just sort by start element when
> in fact interval size is the prominent aspect.
I overlook that this is ordered by the size.
> In practice, this means my changes work only as long as all
> intervals are of equal or decreasing size. Does it make sense to
> uphold this ordering scheme?
I think if you change the ordering scheme to use the left side
(instead of the size) your new logic will work fine. It will also make
it probably easier to check for overlaps in the end.
