Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788,

Although the attached draft of John's position paper is soon to be revised,
it does single me out by name to make a few points. Since he posted it here
on the main reflector a few days ago, I'd like to keep my original response
about this on the record, too:



> > > > > >
In section 1.2, you attribute a few positions to me, but they are not
correct:

Item 1: I don't believe they do the same job. This is depicted in the tables
on p.7 in your paper, BTW. "Red and blue sticky" do not provide correct
structural induction for a result that is "nowhere defined and nowhere
undefined", i.e., if such a result appears in the middle of a lengthy
computation, red and blue sticky may inform the user that the lengthy
computation was "somewhere undefined", which is quite misleading, IMHO.

Item 3: I do actively oppose the illform bit (it is unnecessary). From my
perspective, all P1788 needs is the domain tetrit (motion 18) plus a
"defined and continuous" bit (albeit one that is not so tightly-coupled to
an implementation as the proposed motion requires).
<<<<<<<



Personally, I don't think Items 1 and 3 have anything to do with the motion
about a "defined and continuous" bit, e.g., even John admits this is
"background." In any case, I just wanted to be clear.

Sincerely,

Nate




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit


George, P1788

On 30 Aug 2010, at 22:36, Corliss, George wrote:
> For several days, there has been a VERY active discussion going on among
> several people, and it should be exposed to everyone.  Unfortunately, you
> are being brought into the middle of the discussion, and I'm not willing
> to summarize all that has gone before.  Basically, we have been discussing
> Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit.  Much of the discussion has
> been on decorations for the results of intersect(), union(), and hull(),
> which are NOT interval extensions of point functions.

Thanks George. I think the email you've circulated contains the nub of what
we understand at the moment about this issue. I send herewith the position
paper I sent to the smaller group on 21 Aug; look at if interested, and bin
it, as I aim to send out a revised version soon.

...

Attachment: JDPdiscontinuousbitV1 (1).pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document