Re: Motion P1788/MOO46.02:IntervalLiteratals -- NO
Dmitry
On 2013 Aug 3, at 03:34, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> I vote NO for motion 46.02 .
>
> I would vote YES if the main text of the standard contained portable concrete syntax
I am broadly in agreement with what you write but need to think over how the "portable" concrete syntax should be handled -- whether via the distinction between basic and full standard, or within the full standard. (I think you would like the latter.) Your view is similar to that of Michel:
On 2013 Jul 19, at 21:04, Michel Hack wrote:
> What we CAN and SHOULD standardize are interchange formats, i.e. the
> behaviour of the text2interval() and interval2text() operations (and
> not their actual names, or the syntax of their invocation).
>
> For this purpose, interval2text() should be precise, and text2interval()
> permissive, and of course the latter must accept what the former produces.
Yes, I think interval2text() *should* generate literals in the to-be-defined portable syntax, and am sorry I didn't put this in the motion.
John Pryce