Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Revised Motion 26 decoration scheme

Am I correct in my perception that the only reason for
having either a bare decoration or a bare interval
is to save storage space and (possibly) bus bandwidth?
If so, how significant is the savings it gains us, versus
the simplicity (and possibly resulting additional reliability)
gained from not allowing a separate interval or decoration?

Baker

On 7/18/2011 6:18 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

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.




--

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph 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
---------------------------------------------------------------