Re: Motion to finalise interval literals
John Pryce replied to my issue with [0.1]:
> 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.
I had not realised that the motion was in the context of Level 1.
This should be made explicit, especially since the current draft says
explicitly in 9.6.1: "Level 1 ... makes no requirements on the form
of literals." So pardon me if I assumed that we were talking Level 2.
I'm still curious however what Sun's documentation means by "degenerate
mathematical interval" -- assuming that they have no notion of Levels.
Michel.
---Sent: 2013-06-05 21:22:48 UTC