Motion 44.01: NO
I vote NO on Motion 44 Constructors.
Christian Keil raises a good point: An "optionally followed rule" feels
like a recipe for disaster. So this part of the sentence should be
dropped. And if the rules are really meant to be optional, all the
occurrences of "shall" in 11.11.1 should be changed to "should".
I have another issue with 9.6.8. It says that a constructor that fails
"returns no value", while two lines above, it says that it "returns the
set ...". Which is it? Moreover, I understand "returns no value" as
meaning that it does not return at all, which basically requires that it
either throws or never terminates. I don't think this was the intent of
the text, so this part should just be dropped. To summarize, I would
have voted yes if the paragraph had been roughly structured as
"nums2interval takes l and u; if l <= u, the operation succeeds and
returns [l,u], otherwise it fails".
Best regards,
Guillaume