P1788: M0030.01:Level_1_constructors
P1788,
I have received several votes on M0030.01:Level_1_constructors. Thank you for your participation, but that motion has been withdrawn, amended, and is again in the discussion phase. Baker's message is below.
George Corliss
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Motion P1788/M0030.01:Level_1_constructors Withdrawn
> Date: February 28, 2012 6:56:09 AM CST
> To: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> P-1788,
>
> I herewith consider Motion 30.01 as withdrawn, and Motion 30.02 as
> submitted for discussion and vote. Unless there is an objection,
> Motion 30.02 will have a shortened one-week discussion period.
>
> I will separately call for a second for Motion 30.02.
>
> Juergen: Can you please update the information on the web site?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Baker (acting chair)
>
> On 02/28/2012 04:34 AM, John Pryce wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
> (337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
> URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
> Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
> (Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
> Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
> ---------------------------------------------------------------