Re: Revision to set-based interval literals
Vincent
Baker for your comments.
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:51, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
It is a possibility, but I feel the gain is not worth the pain, and I prefer to give effort to agreeing the all-flavor literals and constructors text.
> 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.
To me, that seems even less attractive, since I don't view I/O as a fundamental concept of the standard in the same way as literals and constructors are. So unless someone really shouts, I'll leave this aspect of the text arrangement unchanged.
John Pryce