Re: (OOPS) Motion P1788/0019.01: Explicit/Implicit idatatypes -- VOTING PERIOD ALSO BEGINS
Nate,
OK; see my inserted comment.
Best regards,
Baker
On 10/10/2010 14:30, Nate Hayes wrote:
Nate Haye wrote:
Baker Kearfott wrote:
Nate, P-1788,
.
.
.
Well, it is a nice thought and interpretation, but its not what I see Motion 23 is
advocating, unfortunately.
In fact I would not have given the motion a "second" if I had been under this interpretation
> that it is what Arnold had been intending. Clearly if you go back and read those e-mail messages,
I don't see that this was the intention of Motion
23.
Yes, you are, in a sense, right. Arnold definitely was against inclusion of an
implicit data type, on the grounds that it complicated the standard. He also
expressed the opinion that it was merely a tricky way of including mid-rad. However,
he also said that Motion 19 could be improved by requiring an explicit data type,
and Version 5 of the motion, upon which we are now voting, has that requirement.
Furthermore, he might have since changed his view that the implicit data type was
crafted only to support mid-rad.
Baker
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------