Re: Motion P1788/M0044:Constructors -- NO
Am Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:10:44 +0100
schrieb John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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?
Ok, that resolves the problem for me. Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Christian