Re: dependent and independent intervals, proposal to toss out text2interval. Was re: about emp (was: Motion 42:no)
On 2013-03-05 13:19:16 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2013-03-03 14:05:32 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> > For text2interval(s) where s is a string, here are some possible
> > upper bounds.
> > (a) No options. Only the mandatory syntax in 11.11.1 (of draft 7.0).
> > (b) Permit the "enhanced syntax" in 11.11.1, but tighten up its
> > specification to disallow many of the possibilities that have been
> > discussed recently.
> > (c) Permit arbitrary arithmetic expressions (of some defined syntax)
> > within s, as in text2interval("0.1+pi") and other more exotic
> > examples discussed.
> >
> > K.I.S.S. With respect, I think (c) is way beyond the bounds of
> > reason, and the discussion of it has only served to confirm this.
>
> IMHO, implementation-defined extensions should be allowed. As they
> are extensions, they don't need to be specified.
While I'm thinking about it, the double-double arithmetic shouldn't
be disallowed, in particular because it is implemented as long double
on some platforms (e.g. PowerPC, as specified by its ABI).
--
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)