Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Motion to finalise interval literals

Baker
  that was my concern.
but as a text-parameter in a function call it is ok. That string - text, however needs to be constrained to keep it readable and with the objective to contribute to an overall , language independant future IA Language. 
This motion IMHO is also about IO
Furthermore some helpful algorithms will be implemented snd provided

Jürgen

Am 09.06.2013 13:25, schrieb Ralph Baker Kearfott:

John, Richard, P-1788,

On 06/09/2013 01:22 AM, John Pryce wrote:

Richard and P1788


On 9 Jun 2013, at 01:27, Richard Fateman wrote:

On 6/8/2013 6:32 AM, John Pryce wrote:

Jürgen and P1788

.
.
.

   writing text files.

I think that I differ in my view of what the standard is aiming for...


I find your arguments quite strong and am more inclined to make
interval literals (ILs) optional. But do you and Jürgen intend
- text2interval "should" be provided, and if it is, it *shall* accept
   the stated syntax & semantics?


I'm a bit confused here.  I understand the "semantics," but what
about the "syntax"?  I'm thinking about 754:  it specifies the
behavior of floating point arithmetic, but does not
spell out the details of programming language function
calls (e.g. "in the hal-2001 language the floating point
addition of adding x and y and storing it in z must be
effected by the text string  "z = IWillAddItRight(x,y)" ).
Are we really dealing with syntax at all in 1788, or
just semantics?

Baker








--
o Prof. Dr. Juergen Wolff von Gudenberg, Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik II 
    / \          Universitaet Wuerzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg
InfoII o         Tel.: +49 931 / 31 86602
  / \  Uni       E-Mail: wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 o   o Wuerzburg