Re: Why (IMO) you should vote Yes to Motion 14.02
Well, we already agreed on not inferring too much from the text and we
are working on a more solid foundation of the things that this Motion
refers to. But
Zitat von Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
This may be nitpicking, but 6.1 doesn't say anything about the
level 2
datum it describes as being represented. You might infer from the
It says "An implementation may choose any means to
represent a
level 2 interval datum..." & in the next paragraph "A
concrete
interval format... (is a mapping) ...to an associated level
2
format."
That's all.
Everything else is an informative note until you get to 6.2
which is about containment in format conversion.
notation that this has to be an interval with bounds in F, but
that's
not explicit in the text, is it? Therefor my note that the text
itself
You might make such an inference but, as you imply, it
would be
inferring a bit too far. The text says only "that it shall
be
possible to retrieve the bounds of x exactly."
Thus some form in which the bound may be recovered by, x +
eps
or even x + x*eps would be acceptable so long as those
operations can be performed exactly.
Isn't this and your later argument about the requirement on the sum in
mid-rad formats exactly this inferring too much? I said "the note
could be interpreted to define the nature of the level 2 datum having
endpoints in F". You say that is inferring too much. The next step in
my argument would be: well in this case the text doesn't define the
nature of the level 2 datum and therefor doesn't require the bounds to
be in F. The note on the triple representation uses a sum to represent
each bound but doesn't say where the operation is to take place and
what kind of result it should have, most importantly it doesn't
require the sum to be executed in F. All of this comes IMHO from the
definition of the level 2 datum. So probably if this Motion is
referring to Section 5 of the standard that part has to be figured out
before a final conclusion of this one---or this one has to be general
enough to support an (in a limited way) arbitrary Section 5 (probably
with minor adjustments).
On to the more fundamental issue...
Christian