John,
Now that I am aware of the arguments
in the previous messages, I understand
very clearly what is the meaning of com and
dac in the standard, and I believe that there is
no need to change the way in which they are
written.
However, I did get confused at first and
I believe other people are likely to be confused
too if they do not see the example. Once
one looks at the example things become
very clear and there is no doubt left
regarding the sense in which continuity
is used in com's and dac's definition.
walter.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM, John Pryce <PryceJD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:PryceJD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Walter
On 8 Sep 2015, at 09:46, Walter Mascarenhas
<walter.mascarenhas@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:walter.mascarenhas@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
> I believe things would be clarified if the standard
> stated explicitly the expected result for
>
> ceil( [0.5, 1.0]_com )
>
> and
>
> ceil( [0.5, 0.75]_com )
>
> All definitions have pros and cons and we have
> passed the time to argue about "the best one",
> but there should be no ambiguity on the standard
> regarding the committee's choice.
It seems to me the definition of com and dac in 11.2 of the standard
is unambiguous, one saying "continuous at each point of" and the
other "restriction to ... is continuous". Is that OK?
Pity the example got lost though.
John Pryce