Re: An error in Section 14.4 of the final draft
On 2014-07-05 12:15:12 -0400, Michel Hack wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:02:46 +0200, Vincent Lefèvre replied back:
> > Then it should be rephrased to avoid the ambiguous "for ... for ...".
>
> This is about the new 5th paragraph of 14.4 -- so how about:
>
> The interchange Level 4 encoding of a compressed interval
> (when supported) is as follows: a non-empty compressed interval
> is represented as described above for bare intervals, and a
> decoration is represented as a pair of floating-point datums...
OK.
> > > > - Replace "no payload information" by "ignoring the payload"?
> > > No -- I'm elaborating on what I mean by "generic NaN".
> >
> > This should really be clarified because at Level 4, a NaN has a
> > payload, so that this seems contradictory.
>
> I did not say "no payload" -- I said "no payload information".
That's equivalent: a payload always carries information, even when
you cannot interpret it.
> Perhaps we should simply say "NaN"? But I wanted to stress that the
> interchange format explicitly avoids using the NaN payload to convey
> information.
Just "NaN" is sufficient. Possibly say that the payload is unspecified
by P1788.
Note that this also means that an implementation may use the payload
to convey information not related to P1788 (possibly because the 754
implementation does).
> > > > - "There is therefore a need to" -> "It is therefore needed to"?
> > > To me, "it is needed to" is pretty awkward.
> >
> > Well, "it is needed to" has 1 billion occurrences on Google.
>
> With "it" as a dummy subject?
At least the first answers on Google use this expression with "it"
as a dummy subject.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)