Re: Proposed disposition of comments
Baker, P1788
On 14 Apr 2015, at 22:44, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In collaboration with John Pryce, we have addressed all of
> the official comments resulting from the recirculation ballot.
> We agreed they were valid, and we accepted them all, making
> the changes exactly as proposed by the balloters making
> the comments...
I have made the changes requested and accepted in the comment-resolution spreadsheet. I also changed "an implementation" to "an implementation of the standard" in the second line of 8.3 as suggested by Baker. Baker, maybe you should add that to the spreadsheet as an editorial change.
It annoys me that 8.3 says "A flavor may provide the decoration com ... In an implementation of the standard with more than one flavor, each flavor shall do so." I wish we said "shall" in all cases, but that's what we settled on. Hence 9.7.5 now says
"An all-flavor decorated interval literal is a string comprising an all-flavor bare interval literal with value x, an underscore “_” and the decoration literal com. Its value is newDec(x)."
The last sentence is as suggested by Vincent & Michel, instead of
"... Its value is x_com."
which would be more sensible.
We have a non-existent tail wagging the dog (a hypothetical implementation that has only one, non-set-based, flavor, and doesn't use the com decoration). But to change this now would be a technical change we have no time for, so we must put up with it.
I also changed the "memorial" paragraph on p.vi to include Antony Popov.
SVN r452.
John