Motion P1788/M0032.02: I vote NO
I vote NO on M0032.02 -- the main issue for me being that the Level 2
midpoint might not be a member, so the mention of [inf_F(X),mid_F(X)]
might be meaningless.
I would excuse the "bounded" (used to be "non-Entire") in the title
as a misdemeanor; the inclusion of Entire being explicitly "part of
this motion" -- this would be an easy fix (the restriction to bounded
intervals only applies to Level 1 and should be mentioned thus).
I don't see "smallest" as a problem -- I interpret it as the intersection
of all intervals satisfying the constraint -- though this could be empty,
and we would have a problem.
I would prefer to return NaN when no member of a bounded interval can be
found that is the Level 1 midpoint rounded to a Level 2 datum. I don't
mind the Level 2 choices made for unbounded intervals.
Some of these difficulties might be cleared up if we firm up what counts as
a legitimate number format and a legitimate interval format. For example,
must we support off-center intervals [a+b,a+c] with b and c of the same sign?
Michel.
---Sent: 2012-04-16 04:22:19 UTC