Motion P1788/M0030.01:Level_1_constructors NO
I vote NO.
My vote would be changed to YES if the following were changed:
The operation num2interval(x) is removed from the motion.
The reason is that it's too dangerous and there are safer alternatives:
if x hasn't been computed exactly, it will return a point interval,
thus won't do what the user would usually expect. The most cases where
num2interval(x) is safe is when x is a simple constant, like a small
integer, and it would be as simple to write nums2interval(x,x). And
still if x is a constant, then in general, text2interval(t) is safer
than num2interval(x): for instance if a constant 1 is changed to 1.1,
text2interval("1") would simply be replaced by text2interval("1.1"),
whereas replacing x = 1 by 1.1 in num2interval(x) would be wrong.
BTW, writing nums2interval(x,x) makes more visible than num2interval(x)
that a point interval is returned, not an interval enclosing the exact
value represented by x like with text2interval.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)