| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Corliss, George schrieb:
Isn't the P1788 standard for the interval that DecoratedInterval would decorate? That is, our class Interval is the SIMPLE interval. Sure, we want it to be as rich and expressive as we can design, but we should expect that in many applications, the expressive power will come from application-specific decorations, so the core class Interval can remain SIMPLE and FAST. Then applications that do not need decorations will enjoy good performance.
We need to specify what support 1722 should rerquire that enables programmers later to do with the decorated intervals whatever they want to do.
If no flags or equivalents for PossiblyUndefined etc. are provide then a user who wants to program decorated intervals that propagatea PossiblyUndefined decoration will have to do that the same way as it is done now, which means inefficiently and with lots of effort:
every operation must be reprogrammed!
It violates KISS to burden the P1788 standard with the decorations each one of us sees as essential for OUR application. In some sense, P1788 is an intersection of requirements, not a union. I do not mean that literally, but I DO mean it SHOULD not do everything everyone wants. I think it is a better standard if it leaves everyone a bit disappointed THEIR favorite decoration was not included.
If efficient constraint propagation and related covering techniquesarenot supported by the standard (and that requires at least PossiblyUndefined and PossiblyDiscontinuous) then the standard is useless for the dominant part of the uses of intervals in applications.
Arnold Neumaier