Re: Motion 42: NO
On 2013-02-12 19:12:51 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> Guillaume
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 17:28, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> > I didn't say either that NaI should not exist. I am all for it and for
> > its propagation from input to output (Section 8.8.3). Again, what I am
> > saying is that trying to find a mathematical justification for NaI
> > (Section 8.8.2) is pointless since it will have no bearing on the
> > standard except for obfuscating it.
>
> Ah, I see now. Maybe you are right. So we should simply specify NaI
> to be a datum that is unconditionally propagated through all
> operations? (Actually a *kind* of datum, since there is one for each
> interval type.)
>
> That spoils, however, the uniform definition that every decoration
> is a property of a pair (f,xx).
This is the only (minor, IMHO) drawback I can see.
--
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)