Re: Level 1 draft text v03.2
John,
Thank you; we appreciate your work.
I'll tender my opinion on voting on it as actual wording soon.
(However, timing of such a vote should be consistent with timing
on positions currently under discussion.)
Best regards,
Baker
On 06/20/2011 01:45 AM, John Pryce wrote:
P1788
I think the revised Level 1 draft text is now sufficiently stable to be circulated. It is attached as 20110618P1788v03.2Lvl1.pdf.
Notes about the text:
- The decoration scheme is almost the same as what
I last circulated. It is waiting for Arnold to
complete his work on the FTDIA.
- Many changes to Required and Recommended Functions:
* Some functions moved from Required to Recommended
or vice versa. Various additions, e.g. min and max.
* I have included Reverse operations, roughly as in
the Vienna proposal, in the Required set.
* Following discussions I have included an extended
set of Slope operations in the Recommended set,
with hopefully a consistent naming scheme.
* Case function (essentially C's (b?g|h)) included
in Required set.
- More careful definitions of expressions and the
functions they define, hopefully without being too
verbose.
Jürgen& Marco, I'm looking forward to detailed comments on the perceived "Theorem, Proof" flavour of the text. However, I would like to think parts of this Level 1 text are ready to be voted on for acceptance as standard text. Baker, Nathalie, what do you think?
Thoughts on the decoration system:
Baker is right to be concerned about "KISS". I shall not be surprised if we end up slimming down the system's current features.
I haven't made a careful comparison yet with Nate's current "Property tracking with decorations" paper.
I think I am suffering decoration fatigue, so I would rather wait till Arnold completes his work before returning to the fray.
Meantime I shall work on revising Level 2. Being about implementable stuff, it won't have that flavour. The main task, at least for starters, is to integrate "explicit& implicit" interval datatypes seamlessly with the rest of the material.
Is "interval datatype" a good name for the level 2 concept? Should it be written in full or is "idatatype" better?
Regards
John Pryce
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------