Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2.
> Subject: Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2.
> From: John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:31:21 +0000
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> P1788 members
>
> . . .
>
> Comments please on the general thrust of the approach.
> Also please say, e.g., if there are needed constructors
> that I have forgotten.
>
> . . .
>
> Regards
>
> John Pryce
My personal preference would be that nums2decinterval()
(for example) be simply nums2interval() on the grounds
that its use is to be preferred & that the bare interval
constructors not exist at all (or be named something
like nums2bareinterval() if they must). But I recognise
that that is a nit & your general thrust is quite good
for our purposes. - Dan