Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit
All,
On 9/1/2010 5:55 AM, Corliss, George wrote:
John and all,
.
.
.
I ABSOLUTELY agree IEPFs are easier to handle. We should handle them correctly.
I submit that, like the AD folks, we should accept the "anything I can code" as a goal, AND accept that we will sin and fall short of God's grace.
Based on our discussions, my intuition iss that we can DEDUCE unambiguously how our exceptions (that is,
the "continuous" bit or tetrit or the like) should behave
on IEPFs (i.e. without using intersection, union, and hull), and that we can make somewhat arbitrary decisions on
how they behave on those, unless someone has applications in-hand in which they need to behave in a
certain way. Perhaps we should focus first on how they behave on functions other than intersection, union,
and hull, and define how they behave on those three separately.
Baker
My Question:
Is "specifying a function as an IEPF" any business of P1788?
If we do, don't we still HAVE to address intersection(), union(), and hull()?