Re: Relation between P1788 and P1788.1
Dima, Baker
On 2 Dec 2014, at 03:59, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is meant by its champion (Ned Nedialkov) to be C):
> 1788.1 is meant to be a proper subset of the 1788 set-based flavor.
> A P1788.1-conforming program is meant to be 1788-conforming, but not
> visa versa. This will become clear when Ned posts the document, or from
> the Project Authorization Request Ned has submitted.
>
> 1788 is meant to be a normative reference of 1788.1, but not
> visa versa.
>
> Which is easier to check: that it be a subset or that it be a flavor?
It cannot be a flavor, because it doesn't have the full complement of operations required in §9 of the full standard.
I would call it a subset, but one must understand what that means. In my view the *only* required (mathematical) relation between the standards is:
(*) A 1788.1-conforming program shall be 1788-conforming.
Maybe judge 1788.1 on how easy it is to understand, implement and teach: these are crucial, but subjective. But if (*), which is objective, is false then there is an error somewhere.
Of course there is also an administrative relation in that IEEE regards them as related.
John P