Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2.
Nate
On 6 Feb 2012, at 15:27, Nate Hayes wrote:
>> 2. I agree with those (Arnold, Dan, ...) who say there should only be
>> constructors of *decorated* intervals, not of bare intervals. This makes
>> constructors secure by default, in the sense that if a programmer wants to
>> discard a decoration that signals construction failure, they must do so
>> *explicitly*.
> Perhaps with the one exception that when using compressed intervals there may be a threshold value specified by the user that makes discarding either the interval part or decoration part of a decorated interval implicit. However, resolving that question isn't germaine to this current motion.
Yes. But I regard compressed intervals as an essentially different data type because of their need to have a threshold value specified. So, that's among things to decide later.
John