Re: Empty interval representations (general)
> Subject: Re: Empty interval representations (general)
> From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:34:40 +0100
> To: P1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Nate, Dan, everyone
>
> On 4 May 2010, at 14:56, Nate Hayes wrote:
> > I still partly think P1788 only needs to specify bit-encodings for
> > interchange formats and not internal representations of various conforming
> > implementations.
>
> This remains my default position and I don't feel Dan or
> anyone else has made a convincing case for doing otherwise.
>
> John
I completely agree. Abstractions everywhere & bit
patterns only where absolutely needed. As they are
needed for interchange, that is as good a place as
any to draw the line. - Dan