Re: Status of recirculation ballot
On 2015-04-14 12:45:36 -0500, Baker Kearfott wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2015 10:49 AM, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-04-14 17:22:37 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >>> There seems to be a problem with the first paragraph or §8.3:
> > >>>
> > >>> A flavor may provide the decoration com with the following
> > >>> propagation rule for library arithmetic operations. In an
> > >>> implementation with more than one flavor, each flavor shall
> > >>> do so.
> > >
> > > After some thoughts, this doesn't seem to make sense. The
> > > specification of a flavor doesn't depend on an implementation.
>
> I don't see the issue here. An implementation refers to an
> implementation of the standard, which may have one or more flavors,
> and not an implementation of a flavor. Shall we add "of the
> standard?"
No, I really meant an implementation of the standard. The problem is
the following:
"A flavor may provide the decoration com with the following
propagation rule for library arithmetic operations."
There are two possibilities for the specification of the flavor.
1. The flavor provides com (just like the set-based flavor), and there
are no problems with this, whatever the implementation that supports
this flavor.
2. The flavor doesn't provide com. This means that an implementation
that supports this flavor cannot support another flavor (because it
would be "an implementation with more than one flavor"). Or what?
--
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)