Re: Common interval literals

[Dmitry Nadezhin <dmitry.nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Vincent,

I attach a new version of the common interval section.

> In the first paragraph of §9.4, I would change ", that" to ", which".
> See:
>  http://web.ku.edu/~edit/which.html
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#That_or_which

The first paragraph of §9.4 was written by John. I would leave this fix for him.

> Lines 10-11:
>  * "A bare interval literals" -> remove the "s".
>  * I wouldn't say "called" as it isn't a naming, the validity is just
>    a property. So, I would say:
>        A bare interval literal is either /valid/ or /invalid/.
>    or
>        A bare interval literal can be /valid/ or /invalid/.
>  * Add "a" between "has" and "bare".
>  * Missing space between "interval" and "value".
>  * "an invalid interval literals" -> remove the "s".

Thank you very much.

> There's a spurious black dot between line 28 and line 29.

I don't see it. Is it still here ?

>> "Denoting" is used for literals.
>> "with a [common] value" is uses for operations (like textToInterval(s)).
>
>But for textToInterval(s), it is said: "If s is a valid bare
>interval *literal* with a common value x" and "If s is a valid
>decorated interval *literal* with a common value xcom".

See the change in the attached file. It is revision 438.

Also
- I removed red highlighting;
- Changed names of subsubsection
Common bare intervals -> Common bare interval literals;
Portable decorated intervals -> Decorated interval literals.
- Moved description of decorated textToInterval(s) after
  general paragraphs about about decorated constructors.

  -Dima

Attachment: CommonLiteralsCh1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document