Re: Constructors motion
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Dan Zuras Intervals
<intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> I was thinking about Nate's discussion of the levels of
> both decorated & bare intervals. Now this may ALSO sound
> silly given that we are currently voting on a kind of
> level 1 & 2 standard only, bbbbuuuutttt in all our
> discussions of bare intervals the justification for them
> has always been one of optimization. That is, bare
> intervals are justified because they improve the memory
> arrangement of intervals (to powers of 2, say) or they
> eliminate the time & effort of calculating the decorations
> when they are not needed or some combination of these
> things.
>
> Given that justification, it seems to me that bare
> intervals belong at level 3. Thats where optimizations
> live.
>
> However, this might become inconvenient should we decide
> not to say anything about level 3.
>
> Therefore, let me suggest that we make an exception for
> bare intervals. That is, we go ahead & define them as
> level 3 objects & talk about when they should be used &
> why. Since that discussion is about optimizations, it
> is naturally a level 3 argument.
>
> Nate, I suspect this may be at odds with what you have
> in mind. So I'm most curious how you feel about this
> suggestion. If it makes no sense at all let me know &
> I'll drop it.
>
> But, for the moment, it seems like it makes both jobs
> easier.
I support this approach. My reasoning is based on the alternative
development processes. IMHO it is far easier to define the full
interval arithmetic and then subset it for simplistic intervals than
it is to defined the simplistic interval arithmetic and thdn extend it
to the full arithmetic. The subset process automatically provides
consistency between the two arithmetics. The extension process is
almost guaranteed to produce inconsistencies between the two
arithmetics.
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America