Re: Defining "common interval literal"
On 2015-03-31 10:33:25 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2015, at 16:02, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In this new text, §9.7.1 "Overview":
> >
> > | An ***all-flavor*** literal is one that has the same value (modulo
> > | the embedding map if it is an interval literal) in all flavors.
> >
> > is ambiguous. What does "in all flavors" mean? All flavors defined
> > in this standard (but this consists only of the set-based flavor)?
> > All flavors supported by the implementation (but such literals would
> > depend on the implementation)? According to the next sentences, I
> > suppose that "in all flavors" means "in all potential flavors" or,
> > said otherwise, "in all flavors allowed by this standard".
>
> I see what you mean. But since 7.1 says "A flavor is an interval
> model that conforms to the core specification described below" isn't
> it correct as written? Yes, one could say "... in all potential
> flavors", but that doesn't read as good standardese to me.
The problem is on the "all", which can be interpreted in different
ways. Normally things that don't exist yet are not part of the "all".
So, "all flavors" should currently mean "the set-based flavor".
For instance, if I say "all members of the stds-1788 list", this
doesn't include future members.
> > | An all-flavor interval literal denotes a common interval, which
> > | if decorated has the decoration com.
> >
> > is in contradiction with the previous sentence if the only flavor
> > is the set-based one, because only this one is currently defined
> > in P1788. But it is OK with "in all potential flavors".
>
> Hmm. Once "all-flavor" has been declared as a technical term, IMHO
> this ceases to be a contradiction.
But what this technical term means is not clear.
--
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)