Re: a draft motion on midpoint and radius
On 2012-09-28 11:06:50 -0500, Nate Hayes wrote:
> I agree. Personally I think the Level 2 definitions are good and it would be
> nice to find some way to provide at Level 1 a consistent definition. How to
> do this would be the question in my mind. Dan’s motion was a valiant effort.
> Nate
I think that Level 1 should define the midpoint on non-empty, bounded
intervals only, and leave the remaining cases entirely to Level 2.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)