Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Amelia A.Lewis scripsit: > Urk. Right. Bob Foster points out, in another email in this thread, > that there are ways of asking the plugin "are you sortable?". But > clearly my proposal here is too facile. This led me to consider what rationalized constraining facets would look like. On the syntactic side, pattern does it all; the RNG rule that multiple patterns are ANDed is IMHO superior to the WXS rule that they are ORed. On the value side, we need to know whether a type is sortable, as you say. If so, then maxInclusive, maxExclusive, minInclusive, and minExclusive are necessary and sufficient. Then there needs to be some notion of whether a a type has an exact or only an inexact representation. In the latter case, precision is a suitable constraining facet: for example, an inexact representation of pi like 3.1415 could be constrained to have .0001 precision. What do you think? -- In politics, obedience and support John Cowan <jcowan@r...> are the same thing. --Hannah Arendt http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
|
