Re: Motion P1788/M0051:IntervalLiteralsText -- discussion period begins
On 2013 Oct 2, at 09:03, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2013-10-01 22:19:17 -0700, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
>> The portable interval literal syntax is defined for the Set-Based flavour.
>> What do proponents of other flavours think about interval literals ?
>> Interval literals in different flavours are not obliged to have the
>> same syntax, but we can afford a small effort to make their styles
>> similar (if this doesn't delay discussion).
>
> I think that the same syntax should be accepted for common intervals
> (same behavior on common intervals in all flavors). This is what
> I proposed to John for the new clause (§9) he added at the end of
> Chapter 1, on the functions required/recommended in all flavors.
At first sight this is a good idea. Dmitry, can I leave it to you to follow this up? Find out from other-flavor proponents if there are any valid reasons NOT to do so. If there are none, please prepare the relevant revisions to Chapter 1 text.
John Pryce