>> 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.
I do not see that note 1 would be interpreted as saying that 0 is the only value valid for both bases 2 and 10. Instead it says that 0 is the only value which is considered the same whether in base 2 or 10. That is, MINUS-INFINITY in base 2 is considered different from MINUS-INFINITY in base 10, but this doesn't suggest that it is invalid in either base.
I'm not pretending to be an expert in REAL. At this point, you have thought about it more than I ever have. Nevertheless, the notes do not present me the imprecision you detect.
===================================================================== Conrad Sigona Voice Mail : 1-732-302-9669 x400 OSS Nokalva Fax : 1-614-388-4156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] My direct line : 1-315-845-1773 _______________________________________________ Asn1 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.asn1.org/mailman/listinfo/asn1
