Re: Resend -- Do I have a second? Re: Motion 51: Section 12.11. Interval and number literals
Also resending my second...
On 2013-10-01 06:47:30 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> (Resending, since I didn't request a second in the subject line.)
> --------------------------------------
>
> P-1788:
>
> Do I have a second to this motion? (The text is attached.)
I second.
> Baker
>
> On 10/01/2013 05:31 AM, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> >======
> >Motion 51, revision of 01 October 2013.
> >======
> >I submit a motion that Section 12.11 "Interval and number literals" be approved as standard text.
> >
> >======
> >The changes since Motion 46.
> >
> >1) Interval literal has both bare and decorated value depending on context.
> >2) Notion of portable interval literal. It is defined by fully-specified grammar
> > without reference to host language. An implementation shall accept any portatble interval literal.
> >3) Hence literals with rational notations shall be parsed by all implementations,
> > though an implementation of "textToInterval(s)" may relax coversion accuracy of such literals.
> >4) Shorter form of Empty literal: "[]".
> >5) Uncertain form for unbounded intervals: "2??u" is [2,+oo].
> >6) "[nai]" denotes NaI . Hence "_ill" suffix is unnecessary in decorated intervals.
> >7) More examples of valid and invalid literals.
> >
> > -Dima
> >
--
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)