Re: Common interval literals
On 2015-03-06 22:44:18 -0800, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> > There's a spurious black dot between line 28 and line 29.
>
> I don't see it. Is it still here ?
I can't even reproduce it with the old version. I suspect a bug
in the nouveau driver.
> >> "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.
Note that Table 9.3 is missing from the attached file, but it is
available in the PDF file from the repository.
> 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.
To avoid any ambiguity when reading out of context, I would change
"The operation textToInterval(s)" to "The *bare* operation [...]"
(page 31 line 18).
And ditto for numsToInterval line 16 since there's also a decorated
version according to lines 23-24 (I forgot that earlier).
Page 31 lines 25-26, I don't understand "except for the decorated
textToInterval(s) constructor."
--
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)