Index: TODO
===================================================================
diff -u -rd13bce90d4d34642050e6d45fef2cc273efaa4ba -r4cbc9b7bb18c34a366ddf058bfe25c3c4706cf7a
--- TODO	(.../TODO)	(revision d13bce90d4d34642050e6d45fef2cc273efaa4ba)
+++ TODO	(.../TODO)	(revision 4cbc9b7bb18c34a366ddf058bfe25c3c4706cf7a)
@@ -5007,6 +5007,7 @@
 - add returns_nonnull assertion
 - simplify few inner code pieces based on assertions
 - add serveral more assertions based on nonnull sepcifications.
+- made nsf::is using the "-strict" option when tcl's "string is" is called.
 
 ========================================================================
 TODO:
@@ -5025,42 +5026,6 @@
 
   get would behave like (=be implemented with) lindex.
 
-- multiplicity: Check or clarify the intended semantics of the lower
-  bound 1 in 0..1/1..1 when it comes to the empty string "".
-
-  What is the intended difference between:
-
-  ::nsf::is 1..1 ""; # 1
-  vs.
-  ::nsf::is 0..1 ""; # 1
-  
-  or
-
-  ::nsf::is alnum,1..1 ""; # 1
-  vs.
-  ::nsf::is alnum,0..1 ""; # 1
-
-  ???
-
-  I suggest that a lower bound of 1 should semantically match what is
-  meant by [string is /class/ -strict], e.g.:
-  	                      ^^^^^^^				
-  ::string is alnum -strict ""; # == alnum,1..1 -> false
-  ::string is alnum ""; # == alnum,0..1 -> true
-
-  Thinking of this makes me also wonder what the difference between
-  specifying 0..1 and simply omitting any multiplicity spec is,
-  actually:
-
-  ::nsf::is alnum,0..1 ""; # 1	
-  vs.
-  ::nsf::is alnum ""; # 1
-  
-  While 0..*/1..* etc. imply a list conversion (=check for a valid
-  list), and 1..1 could check -strict, 0..1 does not imply any rep
-  conversion or rep condition. Can we drop it, and just keep 1..1,
-  0..*, and 1..* (and the alternative notations: 0..n, 1..n)?
-
 - check autoadded asserts
 - check nonnull with various compilers for tcl8.6