Re: Motion P1788/M0030.01:Level_1_constructors NO
Everyone
On 27 Feb 2012, at 11:01, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I vote NO.
>
> My vote would be changed to YES if the following were changed:
> The operation num2interval(x) is removed from the motion.
This comes from an oversight on my part. As Michel Hack (thank you) points out, I had removed num2interval(x) from the standard text to be voted on in Motion 31. And when submitting the revised Motion 30 I asked about it:
On 7 Feb 2012, at 11:35, John Pryce wrote:
> Also shall num2interval(x) be abolished as Vincent suggests? Views please. It can be re-invented at a language level.
but there was little or no response at the time, so I forgot to update Motion 30.
Anyway, now Vincent has brought this up, several people have voted No, for the same reasons as he has, and no one has expressed disagreement with him. Therefore I wish to take as a friendly amendment
"That the operation num2interval(x) be removed from the motion." (*)
Of the 5 possibilities listed by George Corliss on 27 Feb, I think
> 4. Withdraw M0030.01 and introduce a new motion.
is the one that will keep things moving along, but I'll leave it to him and the Chair to decide.
Subject to their decision, my new motion, M0030.02, is the old motion M0030.01 as modified by (*). Do we need a short discussion period or can we go straight to a vote? I apologize for putting you all to the trouble, but I suppose everyone must re-cast their vote even if they already voted on M0030.01. If this were a face to face meeting we could do it more speedily.
John Pryce