Re: Comments on Motion 42 (not 41): Decoration system, revised text
Michel, P1788
On 21 Dec 2012, at 16:37, Michel Hack wrote:
> Continuing with 20121221DecoSystemCirculatedB.pdf:
>
> 8.8.1: I like the new quality-order description (following table 14)
Good.
> 8.8.6, Note on FTDIA on page 35: "Briefly, (29) gives..."
>
> Is that a typo for "(19)", or should it say "(19), or (29) below, "?
Typo due to multiply-defined label!
> 8.8.7, last sentence, allowing intersectionDec() and convexHullDec() to be
> a language's (or implementation's, I presume) default: Should there
> not then be a requirement to provide (in the documentation) a warning
> about possible mis-application that might lead to FTDIA violations?
Yes. I'll add words to require that.
> Question at the end of 8.8 (last page):
>
> It seems to me that the natural way to define ANY function or operation
> on compressed intervals that are a decoration dx is to perform it as if
> it were applied to normalInterval(dx).
AFAICS that looks OK for arithmetic operations. There seems to be a snag with intersection and convexHull, in view of the default being that these produce a bare result.
John Pryce