Re: Some comments on revised Motion 19.02 (explicit/implicit)

[Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nate Hayes wrote:
> Michel Hack wrote:
> > 3.5 Conformance Requirements (page 4), item 3.
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > It should say  "shall support at least one explicit inf-sup i-datatype".
> >
> > (An inherently implicit inf-sup i-datatype would be one without a bound
> > on its resolution.  This was addressed in various postings in the recent
> > past
>
>
> I had the same thoughts and reaction.
>
> Even "explicit inf-sup" could be considered redundant, since inf-sup 
> types with fixed range and precision are the only types that can be 
> explicit.
>
> FWIW, I think all that's required is "shall support at least one 
> explicit i-datatype".

That's not enough, since the example mentioned where only symmetric 
intervals are provided is an explicit idatatype.