Comments on Motion M0031 -- Level 1 text (excluding constructors)
Page 8,
3.1 -- Notation. Please include Z (open-face) for Integers;
this notation is used in Table 2 on page 17.
3.2.4 elementary function: add "in this standard", as the term
is generally NOT synonymous with arithmetic operations.
3.2.6 fma: at level 1 this is just x*y+z; rounding is a level 2 notion.
Perhaps include "(at level 2 this is to involve a single rounding)".
Page 10,
3rd para in 4.1, Level 2: "this level defines a decorated interval"
This text should be provisional, in case we define decorations
as a Level 1 concept.
Indeed, top of page 11 (in "deleted" text) mentions just that
for 5.8.
Page 11, last line: I like this definition of a constructor.
Page 13 line 4 (in 5.4.4): change "on Level" to "at Level" (two instances)
Page 19, 5.6.6 -- Numeric functions of intervals: a quandary. Unless we
make NaN a Level 1 object (denoting specifically "no result", i.e.
function arguments outside the domain) this section should say
"no result", with a note that at Level 2 this would be a NaN. We
cannot say "undefined", because "no result" is the defined behaviour!
Also, for diam() and rad() it should note that at Level 2 rounding
should be via "ceiling". For mid() it should probably be "nearest".
The others are presumably exact.
Pages 19 and 20, editorial: The placement of tables is confusing.
Table 4 should come between 5.6.6 (to which it applies) and 5.6.7
-- and subclause 5.6.8 should not be broken up by both a page break
and Table 5. The break between table 5 and the continuation of 5.6.8
is particularly confusing, as the notes that are part of the table
look like ordinary text. (If the tables were boxed it might avoid
this confusion. I realise that table placement is difficult, and
some document markup/control languages may not be very helpful.)
Also some comments on Vladik's comments:
> p. 8, two different symbols for division, in 3.2.1 and / in 3.2.2,
> I suggest using only / as division
I think he meant 5.5.1; I see no "/" in 3.2.2. Otherwise I agree.
> 3.2.1: fma why not spell it out first time it is mentioned
Could add "see 3.2.6 below". Note that fma is only relevant at Level 2.
> 3.2.9: the word "bound" may be confusing, ...
Agree with the proposed solution.
Michel.
---Sent: 2011-12-06 05:29:44 UTC