`|>>` does not behave as I expect about active HOT 3 CLOSED

Hi, thanks for the report. However, I would expect this to evaluate to 2.0, as you observe. Can you explain why you would expect it to be 1.0?

Note that a |>> b shifts b so that its start time coincides with a's end time. So in this case it shifts the second interval 1 2 one time step later. Perhaps you were expecting it to be shifted so that b's time 0 coincides with a's end time? That might be a useful mode of composition, but it's not how (|>>) works.

from active.

Interesting. I read "after" as "starting after" and not "starting at the same time as the end". It just seems weird that the first value dissapears.

from active.

"After" does mean "starting after" -- that is, starting immediately after. The first value only disappears at the exact point of overlap, so e.g. we still have runActive (interval 1 2 |>> interval 1 2) 2.0001 == 1.0001.

from active.