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

Re: Motion numbers?



George,

I suppose that M0051.01 is a standard text motion.

 -Dima

----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Кому: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Копия: george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Отправленные: Пятница, 4 Октябрь 2013 г 16:34:14 GMT +04:00 Абу-Даби, Маскат
Тема: Motion numbers?

P1788,

We have several motions in varying stages.  As we approach our deadline for completion, we surely will have more.  I suspect I am confused, and I might not be alone.

May I ask that each message try to be careful in the subject line and in the body to be clear (and correct) with the number and description of the motion the message refers to?

Here is where I think we are.  What am I missing?

M0050.01 EDP Without CA
    Voting ends TODAY.  Current tally: Yes - 11; No - 28; needed for quorum - 24
    Position paper
M0051.01 Interval and number literals
    Discussion ends 22 Oct.
M0052.01 Clause 6 "Expressions and the functions they define" 
    Entering discussion
    Standard text
M0053.01 Accept new §9: Ops reqd in all flavors
    Awaiting second
    Position paper?

George Corliss

On Oct 4, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

> 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)