[ 2012-10 Portland: Move to Open ]

This wording caused confusion earlier in the week when reviewing Stefan's paper on greater<>.

This phrasing sounds normative, but is actually descriptive but uses unfortunate wording.

The main reason this wording exists is to document the protocol required to support the legacy binders in Annex D.

Stefan points out that unary_negate and binary_negate have not been deprecated and rely on this. He plans a paper to remove this dependency.

Consensus that this wording is inadequate, confusing, and probably should be removed. However, that leaves a big hole in the specification for the legacy binders, that needs filling.

While not opposed to striking this paragraph, we will need the additional wording to fix the openning hole before this issue can move forward.