Re: Motion P1788/M0044:Constructors -- NO
P1788
On 2 Jun 2013, at 15:27, Christian Keil wrote:
> 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".
The intent is that at Level 2 you shall follow the given syntax but at Level 1 you can do what you like. I changed the relevant text already in response to similar comments (from Michel Hack?) so it now reads
> 9.6.1. Interval literals.
> An implementation shall provide denotations of exact interval values by text strings. These are called interval literals. Level 1, which is mainly for human communication, makes no requirements on the form of literals. This document uses the Level 2 syntax, specified in §11.11.1. [Example. This includes the inf-sup form [1.234e5,Inf]; the mid-rad form <3.1416+-0.00001>; or the named interval constant Entire.]
> An invalid denotation has no value at Level 1.
Is there still a problem?
John Pryce