P1788 Motion 18: No, and revised "stickiness" paper

[John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

I have revised my position paper "Decoration properties, structural induction, and stickiness" following discussions with Nate Hayes and others, and version 3 is attached.

The wording of motion 18 is
> In particular, I move that P1788 shall:
> 
>    -- adopt the general Level 1 and Level 2 definitions of a tetrit --
> along with the propagation rules for tetrits in the P1788 exception handling
> mechanism -- as outlined in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
> 
>    -- adopt the specific Level 1 and Level 2 defintions of a "domain"
> tetrit as outlined in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, respectively, and require
> that all P1788 decorations must include such a "domain" tetrit.

As explained in the paper

- I am unhappy with some aspects of Nate's scheme for the "domain" tetrit.

- I think we should neither require all decoration properties to be tetrits, nor define a standard propagation mechanism. At this stage bits, trits, tetrits, ... should all be acceptable, and considered on their merits. 

In the schemes for "illformed", "domain", "discontinuous" described in my paper, it happens that all properties are, or decompose to, to independent bits.

Hence I vote No on the motion as worded above. I intend to submit a motion based on my paper, shortly. It will propose four bits in total, leaving plenty of room in a byte for some more...

Regards

John Pryce

Attachment: JDPstickydefsV3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document