Re: Proposed disposition of comments
Wait a minute ... Look at line 39, page 19 of the balloted draft.
It says "There is a flavor-defined finite set of decorations as
described in Clause 9,; in particular, it includes the com decoration"
Furthermore, every non-standard flavor shall nonetheless adhere to
the core specification.
This is in the "core specification of a flavor". Doesn't this say
a flavor shall have "com".
Please remind me where the inconsistency is.
Baker
On 04/16/2015 09:26 AM, Michel Hack wrote:
It occured to me that there may be another way out of the "com"-required
discrepancy: Say that "com" always exists at Level 1!
Then a flavor that has no "com" decoration will map it to whatever it
deems appropriate when it takes the T-hull of the Level 1 result of
textToInterval(). This is just like the set-based flavor possibly
changing "com" to "dac" when the conversion overflows.
Michel.
---Sent: 2015-04-16 14:32:10 UTC
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------