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

Re: Reasons (not) to vote Motion 27: NO

On 1 Jul 2011, at 06:07, John Pryce wrote:

My rationale is that ALL the various examples so far shown build to the
conclusion that union/intersection are not free-standing operations in
the way that, say, an interval extension of a point function is. Their
decoration logic is too contingent on the environment in which they are
used, to be fixed in this standard. If we do fix it, these operations
will become illustrations of the proverb "If all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail".


Once can also view this position as a cop-out. I mean, what is the purpose
of having all the formalism for a FTDIA if a user's program can no longer be
validated by it as soon as they include a single intersection or union
operation?

Intersection and union are very common operations in interval programs and
algorithms... so perhaps the majority of programs will be beyond the reach
of FTDIA to verify.

For me, this is not convincing.

Nate