Juergen
Point of clarification please about the wording of the motion. There are 3 "should"s ("is recommended to") and a "shall" ("is required to"). Am I right the motion asks these features to be included in P1788 as "recommended"? In which case the "shall" doesn't make sense. Should it (or maybe shall it) be changed to "should"?
John Pryce
On 9/3/2010 9:28 AM, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
Baker
Yes such a function is necessary
Let me rephrase the motion tomake it clearer (hopefully)
Motion 21
"P1788 should provide access to the states of the interval overlapping
relation. In particular it should provide a function on two intervals a and b whose range is the set of 13 states defined by tables 1 and 2.
Additionally the functionality of the abstract data type IOV described by table 8 in section 5 of the position paper should be available.
For full flexibility the atomic operations shall be available as comparisons, see Table 9."