Re: P1788 Clauses 1 and 2
On further comments from Michel. Sorry for delay.
On 1 Dec 2012, at 22:51, Michel Hack wrote:
> 1.8 item (1): The concept of "level 2 data" will presumably not have
> been introduced yet, so it should use at least a forward reference.
Done.
> 1.8 item (8): This needs to be qualified. It might be necessary to
> invoke a "reproducible transformation unit" though a wrapping
> interface ("glue module") to incorporate it in a non-reproducible
> environment, as the level 3 representations might differ.
>
> The requirement is useful and makes sense in the conceptual sense.
I added ", possibly via a suitable wrapping interface" after "... non-reproducible program".
> 2.1, near bottom of page 4, 2nd bullet for the set-based flavor introduction:
> ... -- precisely, all closed and connected ...
>
> The "all" only applies to Level 1; at Level 2 it is a finite subset
> of the set of all closed and connected subsets.
I added a sentence to say so.
> 2.1, last sentence on page 4: The style is probably a bit too personal.
> A topic that we avoided ... outside our remit from IEEE.
Rewritten.
> 2.3, end of 2nd paragraph:
> ...though few programming languages have yet adopted that.
>
> This *might* still be true 15 years from now, but lets be optimistic
> and replace "yet" with "as of this writing".
Done.
> 2.4, [a,b] notation. Does this representation by endpoints need an
> introduction? It was mentioned informally in the context of the
> cset interpretation (3rd paragraph of 2.1), and is indeed fairly
> common mathematical notation. Perhaps I'm too much of a stickler.
Fair point. [a,b] notation now introduced in 2nd paragraph of 2.1.
John Pryce