Re: Revised Motion 26 decoration scheme
On 2011-07-18 10:09:42 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> John,
>
> While I don't think we should have bare objects of any kind,
I haven't looked at the motion yet, but IMHO, while bare intervals are
mathematically well-defined, bare decorations probably don't make much
sense without a good idea of applications behind. So, I would agree
with you at least concerning bare decorations, unless one can show
that they are really useful in important applications / algorithms
(Nate's examples are probably useful here...).
In any case I think that one other principle is that bare decorations
should never come from true (decorated or not) intervals, except via
functions that explicitly return bare decorations.
> 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.
I tend to agree with you. But the choice should also be made according
to what I've said above.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)