Re: Reasons (not) to vote Motion 27: NO
On 2011-08-18 13:33:59 +0200, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> In any serious programming there is risk of mistakes, and one needs
> to know some precautions to avoid the most common fallacies.
But here the risk is even more important, because the behavior isn't
intuitive and existing programs would need to be modified. Indeed,
existing programs do not use decorations (or at least, not the ones
defined in Motion 26), and the problem here concerns the decorations
only.
> Note also that a good program would catch an emoty initial interval
> before even trying to evaluate some expression. And an empty
> interval created during a range evaluation doesn't cause problems.
A program should not need to do that. More precisely, a program
should not need to do anything to make the decorations correct.
The only reason why a programmer would change his program to get
a different decoration is because the information given by the
decoration is not optimal. For instance, ones normally gets a
decoration saying that the function is defined, but from the
context, the programmer knows that the function is continuous,
so that he may wish to set the decoration explicitly. But if one
needs to catch the empty interval before evaluating an expression
only to avoid an incorrect decoration at the end, then the system
is poorly designed.
--
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)