[QTC] Make compliant with --future from #49

[gatsoulis]

As --future returns QSR dictionaries, the only QSR not complying is QTC as there were some things not clear to me when I try to edit it.

Either @yianni to have another look or @cdondrup

Not high priority at the moment.

[cdondrup]

I can do that.

[gatsoulis]

@cdondrup Just to ask how are you thinking of doing it? My feeling would be something as follows: qtcb {"qtcb": <relation>}, qtcc {"qtcc": <relation>} and qtcbc {"qtcb": <relation>, "qtcc": <relation>}.

How does this sound? Let me know when you think about it.

[cdondrup]

This is not really the purpose of qtcbc. If I wanted that I could just get qtcb and qtcc. Deciding when to transition is quite important here. So it will be {"qtcbc": <relation>}.

[gatsoulis]

Hmmm. Are these QTCs here different that what is described in section 3 of a later paper from Van de Weghe 2004, which provides a concise and clear description of QTC2d link.

[cdondrup]

qtcbc is because that was our invention. For qtcb and qtcc I currently only use two points in time instead of three which is a more simplified version of it.

[cdondrup]

This is what I am doing: http://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/4/1/63

[gatsoulis]

This is what I am doing: http://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/4/1/63

OK, I will have a look. Just the name implies that qtcbc = join(b, c). Anyway, do as you see fit.

[cdondrup]

Which is what it does ;) But with a bit of logic behind it.