Re: Motion P1788.1/M005 to avoid non-conforming interval standards
Can we have a recapitulation of where 1788.1 is
a subset of 1788 (a program running on a 1788.1 conforming system
will behave as if it were running on a 1788 conforming system)
or how it is not? Isn't this a separate issue of whether 1788.1
is a flavor of 1788?
Baker
On 08/07/2016 07:19 AM, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I suggest a motion P1788.1/M005 .
Motion P1788.1/M005:
Avoid non-conforming interval standards.
Rationale:
Producing two non-conforming interval standards is a
bad message for the end-users.
There at least two ways to avoid this:
a) Make 1788.1 a flavor of 1788 ;
b) Honestly admit that P1788 is too complicated
and declare that 1788.1 supersedes 1788 .
Best Regards,
-Dima
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------