Re: Comments on the IEEE-SA draft of P1788
Michel,
THANK YOU for your careful reading and for your observations. They sound like good suggestions to me.
To other P1788 members who are in the Sponsor Ballot: PLEASE VOTE (if I may resume my nagging role). Baker tells me that as of 27 Dec., the voting is Yes: 7; Abstain: 2; Needed for quorum: 25.
Voting continues through 11 Jan.
PLEASE VOTE.
George Corliss,
Formerly Voting Tabulator, P1788
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have a bunch of small editorial comments, and nothing really substantial.
> I'm actually quite impressed by the overall quality. It is in much better
> shape than the initial P754 versions in 2007!
>
> Three items merit attention, and perhaps others can comment before I commit
> my observations to my official reply.
>
> (1) Under 1.3, Inclusions, there is no mention of boolean functions of
> intervals. There are; see section 9.6.
>
> (2) Some subsections of clause 9, Required operations, only describe operations
> and don't state that they are required (9.2 and 9.3); others do say SHALL.
>
> The same happens again in clause 10, Level 1 Set flavor, for 10.5.6, 10.5.6
> and 10.5.7 (10.5 is "required operations").
>
> Clause 12 (Level 2 Set flavor) has the missing SHALLs.
>
> Perhaps this is all ok after all. The missing SHALLs bothered me on my
> first reading, but less so when I reread the sections in a broader context.
>
> (3) The example of a user-defined function in section 11.8 (P 44) mentions
> the "case" function as if that was one of the primitives of the standard,
> but that's no longer the case. Perhaps this could be paraphrased?
>
> Michel.
> ---Sent: 2014-12-28 17:15:48 UTC