Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2: small amendment
> Subject: Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2: small amendment
> From: John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:35:09 +0000
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> P1788
>
> Generally I have had a fair amount of agreement with the revised Motion 30.
> I send it again with a small change suggested by Dan Zuras: the "virtual"
> constructors have "bare" inserted in their names and the others have "dec"
> removed from their names, since being decorated is the default.
>
> Also shall num2interval(x) be abolished as Vincent suggests? Views please.
> It can be re-invented at a language level.
>
> John Pryce
>
I understand there is a certain danger to things like
num2interval(3.1). Still, known exact constants like
num2interval(2) are common enough & necessary. So I
would keep it. Perhaps the default decoration should
be different than nums2interval() but that is a question
for another day.
Which reminds me, either nums2interval() & its ilk
should take a decoration as a parameter or there
should be versions that do. And, of course, the
nature of that decoration is ambiguious at this time.
As usual, IMHO...
Dan
P.S. - While num2interval() takes a floating-point
number as input I'm sure that text2interval() can
be made safe by defining the output to be
[roundDown(text2num(text)),roundUp(text2num(text))].
(Perhaps you already have it defined that way.
I admit to not reading it closely. :-) But even
though I feel we need it, I cannot see a fool proof
way of protecting num2interval(). Alas, there are
always bigger fools.