Re: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
P1788
If Motion 21.02 had said the features described are *required* I should certainly have voted NO. The position paper is unclear about this because the standardese words "shall", "should", "required" etc. hardly occur, and don't make the intent obvious.
But Juergen & Marco's accompanying motion statement, below, make it clear these features are *recommended*:
> Motion 21.2
>
> 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 *should* be available as comparisons, see Table 9."
>
> This motion is to be understood as a supplement to motion 13.04.
> The advantages are outlined in the position paper that serves as
> rationale for the motion.
>
> Note that we do not want to change the traditional way of interval comparisons as outlined in motion 13.04 but we want P1788 to provide an additional way AS AN OPTION, that may offer some new kind of applications.
(added emphases mine)
I think this is right. This implies they will appear in an Annex. Those who, like Nate, can see a use for them and maybe an opportunity to put them into hardware, will implement them. If the result looks appealing, people will say "me too", other implementations will appear and maybe the feature will become required in a future revision. If not, not.
Therefore I vote YES. People who voted no, did you vote against even the _option_ of this feature?
John Pryce