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

Motion P1788/M0048:IO-Clause --voting period begins

P-1788:

Unless there are objections, the discussion period for Motion 48
herewith ends, and the voting period begins.  Voting will continue
until after Tuesday, September 17, 2013.  Voting will proceed
according to the rules for position papers.

Note: John has indicated that, although he submitted actual text,
       this motion is on the idea, not the actual words on the text.
       (That means that, if this motion passes, we will need to re-vote
       on the actual text wording.)
Juergen: Please record the status of this motion on the web page containing your list of motions and links to the actual motions. 

For your convenience, I have attached the original communication from
John, with the motion.

Sincerely,

Ralph Baker Kearfott (acting chair)

--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message --- 
P1788

I submit a motion that 1788 Input/Output be as described in the attached draft text of Clause 12.

This draft has undergone much comment and revision from (especially) Vincent Lefevre, Michel Hack, Ned Nedialkov and Jürgen WvG.

It still needs improvements, especially (I think) in how much "should" and/or "shall" there should be about the conversion specifier cs for Output. But I think it is fairly close to final text.

However I emphasise this is a motion on content, not on actual text. So in summary, you are voting that
1. Specifying I/O in 1788 is a good thing.
2. I/O is closely related to interval literals as in Motion 46, and therefore is an important part of the raison d'être of interval literals.
3. An implementation shall have a "conversion specifier", cs, system to say how intervals shall be converted to strings; but the standard leaves it language- or implementation-defined how this is done. As an example, I suggested that in C, a cs like
  %[%.4f %.6e]
might convert [1,2] to the string
  [1.0000, 2.00000e00]
4. There shall be a documented way to output an interval xx of any type *exactly* as a string s, meaning one can read s back and recover the original xx.
5. 1788 doesn't get involved in stream I/O. So the operations of this clause are like sprintf() rather than fprintf().

I look forward to further constructive comment to help improve the text.

Best wishes

John Pryce

Attachment: 20130728IOclause.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


--- End Message ---