Re: P1788: Next?
I confess I didn't pay attention to the effect of M006.1. It seems a good solution and I am all for it. Let's have some more flavors! You may recall I proved that Siegfried Rump's intervals are one:
> On 2 Dec 2013, at 22:08, John Pryce <smajdp1@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My problem with viewing Rump interval arithmetic as a flavor was that I didn't see what its Level 1 is. But in fact the solution seems quite simple. If I'm right, it *is* a flavor. Please analyse the following and tell me if it works...
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 18:03, Dmitry Nadezhin <dmitry.nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that it is a precedent.
> 1788 is trying to be generic.
> It has common requirements which can be extended in a potential family of flavors.
> This architecture of the standard required more effort of the Working Group
> than possible simpler architecture without flavors.
> Nevertheless, it can be resulted to a family of flavors which are similar
> and so they are easier to learn.
> If the WG spent much time on flavor architecture
> then it is reasonable to use this architecture and
> to ensure that sub-standards of 1788 are flavors of 1788.
That is desirable, certainly. Time will tell but didn't Jesus say "Wisdom is justified by her children."
> Of course it is not always possible. It seems that containment-set approach
> conflicts with the 1788 common requirements.
> Nevertheless, 1788.1 doesn't conflict with 1788 common requirements.
> And I think that we should state this.
> The 1788.1 can be a precedent of sub-standard.
> If it is stated that 1788.1 is a flavor of 1788 then
> it will be easier to require that future possible sub-standards of 1788 are also flavors.
Yes, I hope.