Re: Common interval literals (was comments on the comments...)
Dima, Vincent, John, and all,
>> But is it too much of a change at this late stage? Comments ASAP please.
>
> I can't decide this. If officers decide to approve these changes, I can assist.
In my opinion, we want the strongest standard we are capable of preparing. We should revise and resubmit. I do not think there is anything especially controversial being added at the last minute; just careful attention to some details.
I say, “Revise, please.”
And THANK YOU to the few doing the WORK. I very much appreciate your efforts.
George Corliss
>
> -Dima
>
> === Dmitry Nadezhin wrote October 3, 2013: ====
> Vincent,
>
> I'm not sure the syntax in the common part of the standard
> can be exactly the same as it is now.
> Decoration systems are flavor-specifix.
> Set-based flavour has "[NaI]" form and "_trv", "_def", "_dac", "_com" decoration suffixes.
> Modal flavor has decorations "_ein", "_dac", "_def", "_gap", "_ndf".
> Probably, modal flavor doesn't need the "[NaI]" form.
>
> The "-inf" and "+inf" number literals and unbounded uncertain forms "1??u"
> are not necessary for common intervals.
>
> Kaucher/modal flavours need to extend flavor indepent syntax
> with negative radius and with "l > u" permission:
> "[11,7]"
> "9?-2".
>
> Hence it is not so simple to move subsection section 12.11 into Chapter 1.
> It will be necessary to split it into flavor-independed and set-based specific parts
> whith links from set-based to flavor-independent. I'm still in doubts.
>
> -Dima
> ====
>
> === John Pryce wrote October 3, 2013: ====
> On 2013 Oct 3, at 05:11, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
>> Hence it is not so simple to move subsection section 12.11 into Chapter 1.
>> It will be necessary to split it into flavor-independed and set-based specific parts
>> whith links from set-based to flavor-independent. I'm still in doubts.
> I prefer to keep away from this. Maybe the new §9 in Ch 1 could say all flavors *should* have interval literals as compatible as possible to the set-based ones, and leave it at that.
>
> John