Re: Revision to set-based interval literals
On 2015-03-17 17:52:52 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> I thought about this. If we change it, I suggest deleting 10.5.1
> entirely and moving 12.11 to be a subclause just before 10.5
> "Required operations" -- not a sub-sub-clause *of* 10.5.
>
> Its references to decorations would then of course be *forward*
> references, which is one reason I am dubious.
But 10.5.1 already had forward references. And 10.5.8 (Constructors)
also has forward references to interval literals.
A solution might be to move interval literals and constructors to the
I/O chapter, which is on the same subject, and check the consequences
on the references.
--
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)