Re: Motion to finalise interval literals
On 2013-06-14 08:45:44 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> > On 13 Jun 2013, at 13:23, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > A "literal" is a concept from programming languages. If the term
> > "literal" is used in the standard, it should be synonymous to
> > a text2interval argument, possibly with some language-defined
> > transformations (e.g. a prefix and/or a suffix, character escape
> > mechanisms...), in particular to avoid clashes with other parts
> > of the language.
>
> Fair point, but one must weigh the pros and cons of inventing a new
> word vs. re-using an existing one. "1788 interval literal" looks OK
> to me, on the lines of "754 format". Can you suggest a better term?
> Oh, and if it does just mean "a text2interval argument", how can
> clashes with other parts of a language occur?
Using the term "interval literal" if it is defined in Section 4.2,
to avoid any ambiguity. But is it really necessary?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)