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

Motion P1788/M0031:Constructors NO

   I vote NO on this proposal.  In order for me to vote YES, the motion
would need be changed to provide clearly defined behavior in several cases:

   * When the conditions for nums2bareinterval(l,u) are not correctly
specified.

   * When the string passed to test2bareinterval(t) is not accepted.

   The standards must give defined behaviors in these cases.

   I am also reticent to approve use of NaI unless better mechanisms are
impossible to use (e.g. constructors that throw exceptions, which will
never cause "invalid" intervals to be constructed, which eliminates the
need to check for NaI everywhere else in code, which is a potentially
large savings in code complexity and performance.)

-- 
  Alan Eliasen
  eliasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  http://futureboy.us/