Re: Do I have a second? Re: Position: That the Standard for Computing with Intervals Have Only One Level 1 Requirement: Containment
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:37:26 -0400
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: P-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Do I have a second? Re: Position: That the Standard for Computing with Intervals Have Only One Level 1 Requirement: Containment
>
>
> P-1788:
>
> Do I have a second for this position motion?
>
> Baker
>
> On 8/1/2011 12:26 PM, G. William (Bill) Walster wrote:
> > Please see the attached position description. I believe it is worth consideration.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill
>
Folks,
I have difficulty with the language of this position paper.
The expression "Containment-only Interval Standard" suggests
to me a specification so loose as to admit an implementation
that returns [entire] for all its functions as complying.
And yet, on further reading, I find that I am wrong & this
is NOT what Bill has in mind. I'm not entirely sure what
he DOES have in mind but it is clear that he wishes to
specify things at level 1 as much as possible.
As this is a laudable goal, I second this motion to give it
the discussion it needs as much as for any other reason.
Yours,
Dan