Re: [IEEE 1788]: Post-ballot comment
Oliver, John, et al,
Since this is a minor "editorial" as opposed to a "technical"
issue, I don't see a problem, provided there are no
objections. However, all such things should be documented
carefully before the recirculation ballot.
Since it is not listed explicitly on the set of comments,
the Sponsor possibly can put it (and possible others like it)
in his cover letter when he submits it to REVCOM, after the probable
recirculation ballot. (The recirculation is triggered by
changes made of a "technical" nature to the document.)
Baker
On 02/11/2015 01:58 PM, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
Hello,
Am 11.02.2015 um 17:40 schrieb John Pryce:
Here is the current version, actually revision 430.
I know the ballot comment phase is over, but I found another editorial
issue in the document that hopefully can be resolved together with the
official comments.
In Table 10.7 (page 38) the 10th state of the interval overlap function
is called “equal”. However, in the figure on page 39, line 8, it is
called “equals”.
I suggest to fix the definition in the table and call it “equals” for
two reasons:
1. This would be consistent with the other states, e.g., starts,
finishes. 2. It would prevent naming conflicts with the boolean equal
function.
Best regards
Oliver Heimlich
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------