Re: (OOPS) Motion P1788/0019.01: Explicit/Implicit idatatypes -- VOTING PERIOD ALSO BEGINS

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Note: My own view is that Motion 19 and Motion 23, although related, are
> not mutually exclusive, so each of the votes (YES, YES), (YES, NO), (NO, 
> YES), and (NO, NO)
> makes sense.  In particular, according to my interpretation, an implicit
> data type may be a mid-rad data type, but there may be other implicit data 
> types
> other than mid-rad, and mid-rad need not be mentioned in the definition of
> an implicit data type.

It seems to me that even under this interpretation it will be a 
self-contradiction for P1788 to vote YES to both motions 19 and 23. So I 
guess I don't share your perspecive.

For example, if both motions pass, this seems to imply only non-midrad 
i-datatypes will be allowed in IEEE 1788. At least, that would be my 
interpretation.

Nate