Re: Revision to set-based interval literals
On 2015-03-05 11:17:18 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-03-04 16:15:30 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> > Comments please on this fairly drastic shortening of §12.11
> > "Interval and number literals". It needs to be read alongside the
> > new §9.4, which Dmitry will be revising, or maybe has already.
>
> I'm wondering whether interval literals should be specified mainly
> at Level 1 instead of Level 2. The new §12.11.1 says: "This subclause
> extends the specifications of 9.4" but §9.4 in mainly about Level 1,
> and when one writes "[1.234e5,Inf]", this first designates a Level 1
> interval.
I initially thought that Level 2 was OK because a string is the
same datum at Level 1 and Level 2. However the interpretation as
a literal depends on the level, and one normally first considers
the interpretation at Level 1.
--
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)