Re: P1788.1/M001.01
On 2015-09-22 18:46:57 +0000, Rudnei Dias da Cunha wrote:
> Seconding Michel's remarks, I'd add that then on line 11, Section 4.6.4
> should mention the relationship 1 = true, 0 = false?
I suppose that you mean that it should no longer mention this
relationship.
> Em ter, 22 de set de 2015 às 15:09, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:49:40 +0200
> > > ... the discussion period now begins and will end October 13.
> >
> > Ok, so we DO get a chance to discuss! Two people have voted already, and
> > I was tempted too, but I might as well bring up two editorial suggestions.
> >
> > (1) In table 4.3, show the value of inf(Empty) as +oo, not simply oo.
> > The sign of infinity is shown explicitly in other cases.
and what about Table 4.1?
These remarks on the sign of infinity apply to the main standard too
(for its future revision).
> > (2) In tables 4.4 and 4.6, show the values as True or False, not 1 or 0.
> > This would match the definition in 4.1, Level 1 entities.
> >
> > The mapping of Booleans to Integers may be language-dependent, and
> > some languages actually have explicit Booleans.
I agree, and the main standard has the same problem.
--
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)