Re: P1788Ù Motion to amend Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation needs a second
If voting "yes" lets open the possibility
to modify the notation later if needed,
then I vote yes.
By the way, John Pryce noticed that 4 sentences
should be removed and not 3, I apologize for the
mistake.
> I wonder whether Nathalie forgot that Motion P1788/M0001.01 is about the
> notation to be used *in* the standard, and *not* a prescription for code
> to be conforming to the standard. Excerpt from the original motion:
It was not clear for me whether we can modify it
to have for instance "<" with a subscript to indicate
the meaning...
> So I suggest we let this amendment die without a second.
I can perfectly well live with that, because I am now
reassured that the discussion will take place later in
the process.
Kind regards
Nathalie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie REVOL INRIA Grenoble - Rhone Alpes
LIP - Projet Arenaire tel : (33) 4-72-72-86-42
Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon Fax : (33) 4-72-72-80-80
69364 Lyon Cedex 07, FRANCE Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------