Re: P1788/D9.6 -- the recirculation ballot
On 2015-04-11 12:58:48 -0400, Michel Hack wrote:
> I'm very happy about the shape of this document. I'm sorry not to have
> participated more in the deliberations here in the last three months; I
> followed them but had no significant disagreements, and the final result
> of the new way of defining literals is a great success.
I haven't finished to read it yet, but I have a remark on the wording:
In the first paragraph of §9.7.2 (page 30 line 22):
It is called unsigned if the sign is absent. A positive-natural
literal is an unsigned integer literal whose value is not zero.
I wonder whether "unsigned" should be changed to "natural" for
consistency with "positive-natural" and Table 9.5 (page 32), which
has:
natural {decDigit}+
It seems that "unsigned" is not used in other places of the standard,
so that's quite a simple change.
Or is there any reason to use the word "unsigned" here?
--
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)