Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Motion P1788/M0030.01:Level_1_constructors NO

I'm glad Vincent pointed out that num2interval() is STILL in the motion,
even though is has been removed from the actual standard text being worked
out by John Pryce an Christian Keil.

Is this a case of an overlooked friendly amendment, or was it too late to
change the motion?

In any case, I vote NO -- but would vote YES if num2interval() was removed.

I note that the num2interval() function *could* be supported in a context
where values carried an Exactness indication, e.g. for compile-time literals
if supported by the language.  But that goes a bit too far, and requiring
the explicit use of nums2interval(x, x) at least makes the exposure visible.

Michel.

P.S.  Was everybody who votes YES aware of the fact that the motion did
      not track the agreed-upon change to the text?  Or is this motion
      seen as voting on that text change?
---Sent: 2012-02-27 22:35:06 UTC