Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Motion P1788/M0005.02_Table_of_operations vote : YES

Michel
I think it is important to have the tables of operations in the standard.
At least for the essential parts of them
It will be part of level3 descripion, leaving levels 1 and 2 for the theoretical set definitions of the Vienna proposal 
Juergen

Michel Hack schrieb:

I vote NO on Motion 5 -- table of operations.

I believe with several others that a semantic definition of operations
in the style of the Vienna proposal is a better way to proceed.

I would welcome the explicit definitions in an appendix, if we can
away with that.  (We had a similar discussion in P754R about the late
Dave James' tabular definitions.)

The problem with such explicit definitions as THE STANDARD is that
any small oversight, overspecification, or even typo, leaves nothing
to fall back on.  They are however very useful as a checkout mechanism,
which is why I don't want to ignore them:  they have their place, but
I feel it is as an extra and not as a principal.

Michel.
---Sent: 2009-09-08 20:22:32 UTC


--
=======
      o          Prof. Dr. J. Wolff v. Gudenberg,  Informatik 2
     / \         Univ. Wuerzburg,  Am Hubland,   D-97074 Wuerzburg
 info2 o        Tel.: +49 931 / 31-86602  Fax: +49 931 / 888-6603
   / \  Uni             e-mail: wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  o   o Wuerzburg         http://www2.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/