Re: Motion P1788/M0015.01: Definition_of_decorations: Up for discussion
On 2010-04-28 07:40:19 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> Well, abolishing 'bounded' was neither my intention nor
> something that follows for me from motion 15.
>
> However, the form of 'bounded' that I am considering is
> sufficiently different from that which has been discussed
> that you might consider it abolished.
I don't think this new form of "bounded" is a good idea, because:
> As for whether that turns out to be something useful enough
> to rise to the level of something to be tracked with its own
> decoration, well, we have to figure that out still.
I'd say that decorations should be considered because there is some
need, instead of introducing decorations that come from nowhere and
for which one wonders how they can be regarded as useful.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)