Re: Motion 42: NO
Guillaume
On 12 Feb 2013, at 17:28, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> I didn't say either that NaI should not exist. I am all for it and for
> its propagation from input to output (Section 8.8.3). Again, what I am
> saying is that trying to find a mathematical justification for NaI
> (Section 8.8.2) is pointless since it will have no bearing on the
> standard except for obfuscating it.
Ah, I see now. Maybe you are right. So we should simply specify NaI to be a datum that is unconditionally propagated through all operations? (Actually a *kind* of datum, since there is one for each interval type.)
That spoils, however, the uniform definition that every decoration is a property of a pair (f,xx).
What do others think?
John P