Re: Do I have a second Re: Motion on Clause 6 of standard
On 2013-10-04 06:37:53 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> P-1788:
>
> Do I have a second to the appended motion?
I second.
> (I have attached John's current version of the
> P-1788 document, containing clause 6.)
>
> Baker
>
> On 10/03/2013 07:11 PM, John Pryce wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >To set the ball rolling I submit
> >Motion==============================================
> >Clause 6 "Expressions and the functions they define"
> >be accepted as standard text.
> >====================================================
> >
>
> I apologise that this means rejecting text that was accepted before
> (motions 40, 41 I think) but there is good reason IMO.
> See explanation below, which forms a mini-rationale.
> .
> .
> .
> >- §6 Expressions. I had previously (re)written this with an informal
> > definition of what an expression is, on the grounds that a formal
> > defn would constrain a language, which is not 1788's job.
> > Wolfram Kahl (McMaster) pointed out that "expression" as used in
> > FTIA is nothing to do with a language - one could apply the FTIA to
> > results of an interval program written in machine code, say.
> > So rewritten again and with more precise definitions.
> >
> > Big change, so I think this needs a separate motion.
> >
> .
> .
> .
--
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)