Motion to finalise interval literals
John Pryce is proposing:
> - with the addition of the singleton interval form [x]
> which is equivalent to [x,x].
What if there is no such singleton, e.g. [0.1] in Binary64?
I seem to recall that we explicitly avoided this form two or three years
ago precisely because of this issue.
The syntax would be ok if it was not required to deliver a singleton, but
could produce an interval containing only two representable numbers which
enclose a non-representable mathematical value.
Note that such an interval could be semi-bounded if the mathematical value
exceeds MAXREAL in absolute value, e.g. [1e400] for Binary64.
Michel.
---Sent: 2013-06-05 15:22:09 UTC