Re: Reasons (not) to vote Motion 27: NO

[Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arnold,

I agree.  We definitely are on the same page with
regard to this issue.

Best regards,

Baker

On 08/18/2011 10:32 AM, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 05:10 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> > I'm still a bit confused about specifying over "free expressions"
> > versus "bound expressions," since my perception of the scope
> > of the standard is specification of individual operations,
> > rather than in the parsing of expressions in a programming
> > language. However, I suppose we can define the individual
> > operations (including possible decorations) according to
> > their effect on expressions, and whether or not we are
> > thinking of free expressions or bound expressions would
> > affect how we do this.
>
> The standard must specify the operations only, but the discussion must
> ensure that it is clear when the operations supported can be safely
> employed.


--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. 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
---------------------------------------------------------------