Re: A proposal for the next motion
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:16:03 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: A proposal for the next motion
>
> Dan et al,
>
> I guess great minds think the same way :-)
>
> The "invalid" flag you propose below seems very similar,
> if not the same as, the "discontinuous" flag John Pryce
> had been discussing for some time. I'll let John comment.
>
> Baker
>
Ralph,
I cannot take credit for another man's work. It was Vincent's
idea. All I did was point out there was precedent & flesh it
out a bit. This could also be a resolution to the empty versus
NaI debate in that the moral equivalent of NaI could be carried
around & tested for in any result however innocent looking.
I like the idea of a 'discontinuous' flag if it is implemented
locally as Vincent suggests. I don't know how you'd define it
but, as the whole notion of intervals is wrapped up in the
assumption of continuity, having a flag to tell you that you got
here by a discontinuous path would be useful.
All in all, not a bad approach.
I will tell you that the hardware & compiler guys will give us
the evil eye if we suggest Vincent's every-interval-carries-its-
history-with-it approach. They can both implement it but we
make their lives more 'interesting' in the oriental sense.
Still, some guys like a challenge. :-)
Take care,
Dan