Re: Motion 46: finalise interval literals
On 2013-07-11 09:21:02 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> For the current motion, I attach final text to be voted on. I've
> done a bit of rewriting, but the main change is that I've hopefully
> lessened the above conflict by making "rational endpoints", i.e.
> rational number literals, optional. Besides infsup form [5.6,7.8],
> Neumaier's uncertain form 5.6?1 stays because I think it is useful,
> and easy to read once you get used to it.
You should give an example with a power of 10, because not everyone
has the same definition of ulp for such a number. Say, "100?" is
[99.5,100.5]. Also, it is ambiguous for 0: is it defined or not?
For instance, "0?", "0.0?", etc. The ulp of 0 is not defined, but
it can make sense to define "0?", "0.0?", etc.
Moreover the grammar doesn't match (1). According to (1), "011" is
9 in C, but according to the grammar, it is 11, in the context of
ratNumLit.
Also, what about locales? Is this for the "default" locale only or
for all locales? In the latter case, for Turkish locales, "Inf" would
not be accepted as an infinity.
--
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)