Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit
George & all
On 1 Sep 2010, at 11:55, Corliss, George wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:39 AM, John Pryce wrote:
>> But this email is about another point in these discussions.
>>
>> Being stubborn, I persist in thinking that it would be useful IF it were possible to specify a function as being explicitly "an interval extension of a point function" so it contains NO intersection and union operations. Let's call such an f an IEPF.
> If we adopt something like that, what ARE intersect(), union(), hull()?
They exist, can be used in any code that isn't an IEPF, and are handled by Nate's recipe. But they are forbidden (by "some means" TBD) to appear in an IEPF.
John