Re: [IEEE 1788]: Post-ballot comment
On 2015-02-11 20:58:23 +0100, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
> 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.
There would be a drawback. The other states have the forms:
Xs and XedBy (except for "before" and "after", which are also
paired, but named differently). But "equal" is different: it is
the only state self-symmetric. If you name it "equals", then one
could think: where is the "equaledBy" one? So, this would not be
so consistent.
> 2. It would prevent naming conflicts with the boolean equal function.
But the difference would be so small that it could remain unnoticed.
The state could be called equalNE, for "equal and non empty", since
here the intervals must not be empty to be in this equal state, while
with the boolean function, equal(Empty,Empty) is true.
--
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)