Re: Do I have a second? Re: Motion on decoration bit to verify continuity

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear John,

If you would be willing to change the proposal from "discontinuous" to 
"defined and continuous," then I would proffer an ethusiastic second to the 
motion. Otherwise, I fear my vote would be a reluctant "no" if this change 
is not made.

Otherwise I think you've done a fine job.

Sincerely,

Nate


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 1:05 PM
Subject: Do I have a second? Re: Motion on decoration bit to verify 
continuity


> P-1788:
>
> Do I have a second?
>
> Baker
>
> P.S. I applaud John for the continuing effort he is putting into
>      our endeavor.
>
> On 9/11/2010 12:30, John Pryce wrote:
> > P1788
> >
> > By the attached position paper I submit a motion that P1788 support a 
> > decoration bit to verify continuity. My personal preference is for a 
> > "discontinuous" bit but it is trivial to change it to its negation, a 
> > "continuous" bit.
> >
> >  From the introduction:
> >
> > > This is part of exception handling, which the group has found tricky to 
> > > discuss and design. Decorations are the means we chose; subsequent 
> > > discussions show it is not easy to grasp how to use them properly. 
> > > George Corliss (2010 Aug 29) wrote
> > >     If folks of OUR experience have trouble understanding, God help the 
> > > casual user!
> > >     We have been, and we must continue to be, sensitive to KISS. I guess 
> > > one path to
> > >     simplicity is a very carefully worked-out, consistent, and coherent 
> > > level model.
> > >     That is, WE work very hard so that the result is easy.
> > >     I’m OK with that, as long as the result IS easy.
> > >
> > > This made me think, rightly or wrongly, that it is crucial to be able to 
> > > _explain_ discont to a prospective user, i.e. a writer of application 
> > > software. So this version, V3, is a complete rewrite of V2 with that in 
> > > mind. In Subsection 3.2, I attempt to document discont for such a user. 
> > > Please read this critically. Does it explain the existing design simply 
> > > enough? Could the design be changed to fulfil the same purpose but 
> > > simplify the explanation?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > John Pryce
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
> (337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
> URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
> Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
> (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
> Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
> ---------------------------------------------------------------