Re: Revised Motion 26 decoration scheme
> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Revised Motion 26 decoration scheme
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:27:00 -0500
>
> John Pryce wrote:
> > Note also that our text continues to include Nate's "bare object
> > arithmetic", whose importance for efficiency I accept.
>
> I'm glad to hear that, but I note we don't agree on how bare decorations are
> promoted to decorated intervals: Bare decorations should always be promoted
> to Empty decorated intervals, not Entire.
>
> . . .
>
> Nate
John,
While I don't think we should have bare objects of any kind,
I agree with Nate on this point. But for a different reason.
If we should promote bare decorations to anything other than
empty, we risk violating inclusion isotonicity &, therefore,
violating FTDIA.
It is my opinion that this risk is entirely due to the mixing
of bare objects with 'true' intervals but the risk is there
whatever your opinion of their utility.
Yours,
Dan