Re: comments on the comments...
On 2015-03-04 09:32:49 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> You have shown my assertion (*) above is shaky. OK, there's a design
> decision here for xx = textToInterval(s). If we allow "promotion"
> from bare to decorated, I favour the standard saying
> "If xx's bare value is common, and context requires it to be decorated,
> the decoration shall be com in all cases."
>
> That is simple to understand. Maybe we already almost say this
> already, I'll need to check. Any objections to it?
I agree. No objections from me.
--
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)