Re: Constructors motion
Dan, Nate, P1788
(Written while full of Christmas turkey, before looking at the subsequent postings on this topic)
On 17 Dec 2011, at 10:29, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> (John Pryce wrote:)
>> ... Kaucher
>> intervals are different. I had always assumed (I think this is explicit
>> in some of our correspondence right at the start of the project) that
>> there will be a separate clause of P1788 called something like
>> "Extensions and changes to the standard for Kaucher intervals".
>
> So is it well understood at this point that excluding
> Kaucher intervals (at this point) is a GOOD thing?
>
> If they are excluded ONLY for the lo <= hi thing, can
> they not be included by a Kaucher decoration which
> reverses that?
A "Kaucher decoration" is a design choice I hadn't thought of. I had always assumed one is computing EITHER in normal interval mode, OR in Kaucher mode, and that the two modes have separate libraries. Your idea seems to incur an overhead because dispatching of operations must, potentially, be done at run time instead of compile time. And then there is the semantics of mixed-mode operations to consider ...
I think we need to decide this soon. At first glance I do NOT like this way of doing things.
John