Re: Motion P1788.1/M001.02: No
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dear all,
On 12/07/2015 02:35 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Since we are voting on the actual wording, I vote "NO." Absolutely
> the only thing to which I object is the non-normative part where
> "natural interval extension" is defined. I realize this is a bit
> of quibbling and will not affect what the standard actually is, but
> I think changing it will avoid future confusion in the literature.
> I think Vladik et al have already come up with some alternate terms
> that could serve better.
I found that same problem two months ago while rereading carefully the
IEEE 1788 standard but thought it was useless to raise the issue on
the list since I believed it was too late to correct it in the
published standard, and that P1788.1 could not be amended for it to
stay consistent with IEEE 1788.
If it is indeed possible to replace "natural interval extension" by
something else, thereby avoiding to use the expression with a
definition at odds with most, if not all, papers and books on the
subject, then I also vote NO on Motion P1788.1/M001.02.
Best regards,
FG.
- --
Frédéric Goualard LINA - UMR CNRS 6241
Tel.: +33 2 76 64 50 12 Univ. of Nantes - Ecole des Mines de Nantes
2, rue de la Houssinière - BP 92208
http://frederic.goualard.net/ F-44322 NANTES CEDEX 3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWZZ5EAAoJEIyjRWvAvCeCDqIIAIQzX2VWVRP6uS1UP7KMzOIZ
OonTzkqor/y+H3nw5sAb5itANr/Ef7f4L3LvJiIAGMCD4K7xEP9dnQhXdH4D8t41
jTPyOUZoMghULPqCiwdrb0Pikf/sqzbIOdQLZlhN445FgPt5JsAtXe08p1Zkvy5+
78Oty1KxH1hEp2yVX6JCiBHoBOD+bAuooNlHaSX8UANgUNzNvHC5OhzL8M1bFDf7
VGmfpQadBckMbH8F98BMyH0ZRH2xf6ekR5yhF6e7lBq2PgRkX70LQ3YWxPj7IHZA
tX37lMBLHkYs3GkcSh/gMchXuWLyK1N2g4h89+yX511veL2j75OYxaPYHhDSZvw=
=XjXk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----