Re: Motion P1788/M0044:Constructors -- NO
My vote on the Motion is NO.
As I read it there is an inconsistency in the changed sentence
that needs to be addressed for me to change my vote to yes.
The changed sentence references "Rules" in the Level 2 description
that "may optionally be followed".
While rules being optionally followed already sound strange to me
in the first place, this clause thus sounds to me like the statements
in 11.11.1 may optionally be followed, while the referenced subclause
itself gives rules on literals that "shall be supported" and are thus
mandatory and not optional (see the paragraphs before the lists of
number literals and interval literals in 11.11.1). This contradiction
---if I'm not misreading things---has to be resolved.
My preference would be to require the literal's support or at least
require some subset. In the current clause this could be remedied by
simply stating "Rules for the string t accepted at an implementation
level are given in the Level 2 Subclause 11.11.1 on interval
literals.", dropping the part referencing the rules as optional. The
exact situation of the literals should then be addressed in 11.11.1.
Cheers,
Christian