Re: P1788 latest revision
John,
I like using "all-flavor literals" and the removal of the word "valid" with literals.
There are still some small issues.
1) The (AF) definition of mathematical interval of constructor 3.2.41
has a link to set-based chapter. Now it can link to all-flavor chapter
<<<
\ssrf{lvl2bintvlconstructors}
===
\ssrf{ch1reqdconstructors}
>>>
2) As bare literals are no more considered as decorated literals by 9.7.5,
the grammars in Table 9.5 and Table need to be fixed:
<<<
\Trm{decoratedIntvlLiteral}& \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \M| \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \L{\_} \trm{decorationLit} \\[.8ex]
===
\Trm{decoratedIntvlLiteral}& \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \L{\_} \trm{decorationLit} \\[.8ex]
>>>
and
<<<
C &\Trm{intervalLiteral} & \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \M| \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \L{\_} \trm{decorationLit} \ul{\M| \trm{NaI}}
===
C &\Trm{intervalLiteral} & \trm{bareIntvlLiteral} \L{\_} \trm{decorationLit} \ul{\M| \trm{NaI}}
>>>
3) Text 12.12.7 about setbased level 2 constructor needs some rewording.
Page 62 line 18.
Say explicitly "is a bare interval literal" instead of "is an interval literal".
Page 62 line 19.
Remove "or [l,u]_dx".
Page 62 lines 27, 28 are not correct now:
"The decorated constructor succeeds if and only if
the bare interval constructor succeeds. The decorated constructor fails returning NaI if and only if the bare
interval constructor fails."
Page 62 line 31-34 should be formulated in another way.
-Dima
----- Original Message -----
From: PryceJD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:37:13 PM GMT +04:00 Abu Dhabi / Muscat
Subject: P1788 latest revision
My latest attempt is on the SVN, rev 440, version 9.6. Look especially at the literals & constructors in §9.
John P