RE: Nate's objections to Motion 42
Michel Hack wrote:
> > If an implementation throws exceptions, a user will always be alerted
> > as soon as the invalid construction is encountered, regardless what
> > the decoration scheme is. So it's a moot point.
>
> Not it's not: we want to allow the two kinds of Empty to have different
> propagation rules, so that ILL will not be lost, but EMP could under
> certain circumstances be absorbed. In the absence of exceptions this
> should allow validity tests to be deferred longer.
If you're talking strictly about arithmetic operations, why would you ever
want an emp decoration (or an empty set, for that matter) to be absorbed?
Nate