Re: Motion to finalise interval literals
Michel
On 5 Jun 2013, at 16:15, Michel Hack wrote:
> 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.
No, it was only dropped for simplicity. There isn't a problem and never was. (If there had been, then "[0.1,0.1]" would have had the same problem.) Remember the value of an interval literal is a Level 1 value, as I hope the text makes clear. At Level 2 it is enclosed by a representable interval.
John