My initial view was interval literals of the same radix (p. 21, line 4, red means crossed out),
no rationals, and no uncertain form.
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 07:23, John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 04:00, Dmitry Nadezhin <dmitry.nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> it is not clear to me that 1788.1 is a flavor of 1788…
>> Part 1 "General Requirements" of the 1788 standard defines requirements for a flavor.
>> Which of these requirements are not met by 1788.1 ?
>> Best Regards,
> I seem to remember this became an essentially technical question and that whether 1788.1 is a flavor or not comes down to how literals are handled, e.g. by numstointerval() and texttointerval(). E.g. does it support mixed radix interval literals (MRILs) as
in Table 9.4. "All-flavor bare interval literal examples"? E.g.
> "[-0x1.3p-1, 2/3]" or "[-0x1.3p-1, 0.6667]"
> Dima pressed for a specification that would make it a flavor, while Ned was not keen, on grounds of keeping 1788.1 simple. Vincent Lefevre also expressed some views. The point was, I think, that the computational complexity of deciding if a MRIL represents
a valid (nonempty) interval can be very high, and is this a burden worth putting on implementers of a "basic" standard?
> I don't recall how the discussion was resolved, if it ever was. Ned, Dima, Vincent?
> If it wasn't resolved, personally I would be happy if 1788.1 keeps the simpler spec that means it's not (currently) a flavor. When the main 1788 standard is revised in a few years, we can decide whether to limit literals to follow the 1788.1 form -- in which
case 1788.1 would become a flavor!