Re: Motion P1788/M0051:IntervalLiteralsText -- discussion period begins
On 2013-10-02 21:11:31 -0700, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> Decoration systems are flavor-specifix.
But com is common to each flavor, though optional in implementations
with only one flavor. And though the name of the decorations may be
different, how they are written in an interval literal will be similar
in all flavors.
> Set-based flavour has "[NaI]" form and "_trv", "_def", "_dac",
> "_com" decoration suffixes.
> Modal flavor has decorations "_ein", "_dac", "_def", "_gap", "_ndf".
and "_com" (optional).
> Probably, modal flavor doesn't need the "[NaI]" form.
I thought that NaI was primarily introduced for the modal flavor.
For instance, on [1,1] / [0,1].
> The "-inf" and "+inf" number literals and unbounded uncertain forms "1??u"
> are not necessary for common intervals.
True. Ditto for Empty.
> Kaucher/modal flavours need to extend flavor indepent syntax
> with negative radius and with "l > u" permission:
> "[11,7]"
> "9?-2".
While an uncertain form is useful for set-based intervals (proper
intervals in the context of a Kaucher/modal flavor), I wonder whether
this is still the case for improper intervals.
> Hence it is not so simple to move subsection section 12.11 into
> Chapter 1.
I don't think it should be moved to Chapter 1. Operations are
defined in Chapter 2, even when they apply to other flavors.
However textToInterval should be mentioned in §9 of Chapter 1.
I think this is what the following is about:
> ----- Исходное сообщение -----
> От: j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxx
> Кому: vincent@xxxxxxxxxx, dmitry.nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx
> Копия: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Отправленные: Среда, 2 Октябрь 2013 г 16:35:17 GMT +04:00 Абу-Даби, Маскат
> Тема: 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
--
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)