Re: Another thought Re: Correction to my last posting Re: dependent and independent intervals, proposal to toss out text2interval. Was re: about emp (was: Motion 42:no)
On 2013-03-06 10:18:12 -0600, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Again, please excuse me if I am missing the point. However, if an
> implementer wanted to provide an extension while there is a
> consensus that text2interval should check the input format carefully
> to allow, say, only forms corresponding to floating point inf-sup or
> perhaps also mid-rad, couldn't the implementer provide a function
> other than text2interval?
Yes, but it would not be portable, whereas text2interval() could be
used in a portable way, even on extensions, e.g. together with the
inverse function.
> However, this brings up the question of how strongly text strings
> should be specified, since valid representations differ between
> different higher-level computer languages.
This is only a problem with literals.
--
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)