Re: Proposed disposition of comments
Baker, Michel, Vincent, P1788
On 15 Apr 2015, at 17:25, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 02:52 AM, John Pryce wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>> 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.
>>
> Indeed.
(*)
> The implementation shall provide at least one "standard"
> flavor, and the only standard flavor in the document is the
> one-and-only set-based flavor. We can change the wording at the
> same time as when we process another flavor someone has
> developed.
(*) is from 7.1 paragraph 4. So the hypothetical scenario can only arise if the editorial board that vets new standard flavors accepts one that doesn't use com. So we can stop it ever arising.
From recent discussion it seems that in 9.7.5, neither "Its value is newDec(x)" nor "Its value is x_com" get rid of the potential inconsistency. So I'll revert to "Its value is x_com" as being simpler.
John