A slight clarification Re: Bill's motion
John,
On 11/25/2013 09:03 AM, John Pryce wrote:
.
.
.
§6.
The Motion 52 revision of §6 is not due to any theoretical weaknesses in the standard.
1788 makes requirements at the level of individual operations. We agreed
this early on --
I seem to recall Baker was particularly strong on this point.
My recollection was that I pointed out that we were working on
an arithmetic, as opposed to a language, standard. The course
taken was due to working group decisions. However, I agree with
John that the course taken was decided relatively early.
(This may be a very nuanced distinction.)
Best regards,
Baker
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------