On 12/29/06, Conrad Sigona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're looking for somewhere that explicitly says that your example is
>> legal, you won't find one. But then I don't believe you need one.
>
> There is no doubt, that MINUS-INFINITY is a valid value for the
> unconstrained REAL type. The question was about constraints. Section
> 20.3 does not help at all in this respect.
>
> So this seems to be a grey area in the standard.
I can't agree. To me it's clearly permitted. That is, all valid values
within the constraint are permitted. It is a valid value; it is within the
constraint. Why shouldn't it be permitted?
The key phrase here is *it is within the constraint*. How can you be
so sure about it? For example, 20.5 Note 1 could be read to imply that
0 is the only abstract value that is base 2 and base 10 at the same
time. If we accept MINUS-INFINITY as a base 10 value it is only fair
to accept it as base 2 value as well. However, this leads to a
contradiction with Note 1.
_______________________________________________
Asn1 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.asn1.org/mailman/listinfo/asn1
