Re: I vote NO on Motion P1788/M0030.02:Level_1_constructors
First I'm a bit lost. Has voting officially started on this motion?
On 2012-03-27 22:34:28 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This motion defines nums2bareinterval, text2bareinterval,
> bareempty, & bareentire in some detail & then goes on to
> define decorated constructors as something of an
> afterthought.
at Level 1.
> It is my opinion that bare intervals will be of great
> utility to optimizing compilers to reduce both storage &
> computation for those applications that can PROVABLY do
> without decorations. But I believe it will turn out to
> be poor programming practice for users to create bare
> intervals on their own.
I agree, but the motion is about Level 1 (not available to
programmers) and it says:
The decorated interval constructors are defined in terms of the
following bare interval constructors, which are "virtual" since
they have no Level 2 counterparts in the standard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I understand correctly, they won't exist at Level 2, i.e. for
programmers.
--
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)