Re: Motion 46: finalise interval literals, amendments
Dmitry, Ian et al
On 12 Jul 2013, at 04:33, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> So tightest implementation must store all digits of l in memory.
>
> However, there is a relaxed rule in 11.11.8 of the Draft 7.3 :
> "text2interval(s) ...
> succeeds in the following cases ...
> - s is of inf-sup form [l, u] but the implementation cannot determine that l ≤ u. The result shall
> be an interval containing l and u".
>
> So accurate implementation may say that it cannot determine and
> return b64-text2interval(s1) = [1, b64-nextUp(1) ]. It doesn't need to store all digits of l in memory.
>
> This problem occur only with tightest implementation.
> Accurate implementation can handle all forms of interval literals (including p/q form) in bounded memory.
Yes, I put that "cannot determine", rather from my intuition, without discussing with you experts. It was meant as a get-out clause to handle the difficulties now being discussed. Is it adequate or does it need re-stating?
John Pryce