Re: Motion 13 and "<="
> Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:37:30 -0400
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Michel Hack <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Motion 13 and "<="
>
> What Baker calls "certainly less than or equal" has been
> called "precedes or touches" in M13 in order better to
> convey the right idea.
>
> We must not get hung up on names -- languages and packages
> will define those, and all the standard should specify is
> (a) precise definition
> (b) availability ("should" or "must")
> (c) require documented mapping of names
>
> The standard would use a set of clearly-distinguishable
> and maximally-meaningful internal names, and may mention
> what existing names (if any) they already correspond to,
> but it should not tie itself to existing names, because
> those may well have conflicting interpretations already.
>
> Michel.
> ---Sent: 2010-05-04 13:45:34 UTC
I will echo Michel's sentiment that the names are
not something we should spend time discussing.
They only have meaning to us as he describes.
And I would go further than he to suggest that
it is to our advantage to AVOID any existing names
in favor of meaningful & (possibly) verbose names
of our own. That way we avoid tying ourselves to
any existing & possibly different concepts.
The mappings to existing names or to existing
similar concepts (& how they differ from our own)
becomes a good topic for an informative annex.
But not something we need to concern ourselves
with now.
Dan