[ibis-editorial] Re: New agenda topic for this week

From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 03:34:55 +0000

Just one more comment on the purple highlighted text:

[cid:image002.png@01D73BB5.89191240]

This range for an integer is true for 32-bit integers.  In this day of 64-bit
age,
I wonder whether we should change it to −9,223,372,036,854,775,808 and
+9,223,372,036,854,775,807, or remove that…  And how about unsigned
integers (which have a range of 0 to +4,294,967,295 on 32-bit machines or
0 to +18,446,744,073,709,551,615 on 64-bit machines)?

In the IBIS-AMI world where people are chasing really low BER results,
a 32-bit signed Integer may not always be enough…

Arpad
===============================================================

From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:22 PM
To: michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: New agenda topic for this week

Hello Everyone,

First I need to ask the question, where in the world did this come from in the
“Description Of Bug” section:

"the first
value shall be assumed to be the default, if the optional selection Default
is not present. If the optional selection Default is used with List, the
argument to Default must be an explicit member of the List and will override
the use of the first List value as default (for example, (List -2 -1 0 1 2 3)
implies that the default value for the List is -2, while (List -2 -1 0 1 2 3)
(Default 1.0) means that the default value for the List is 1.0, not 1)."

I searched in the specifications, and versions 5.1 to 6.1 has this:

[cid:image003.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

and version 7.0 has this:

[cid:image004.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]
[cid:image005.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

Where did the yellow highlighted text come from in the BUG?  (I can’t find it
in any of the specs).

Second, the cyan highlighted text:

[cid:image006.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

implies to me that “explicit member of the List” means that they must be
identical, in other words float and
integer mixing between Default and List is NOT allowed, and consequently they
should be spelled the same
way.

However, regarding this definition of UI:

[cid:image007.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

how do we know what is a floating point vs. integer value?  I found the
following definition for float and integer
on pg. 215:

[cid:image008.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

So when someone writes 1, 2, 3, these can be integers just as well as floating
point numbers…
We even have at least one example on pg. 218 to illustrate that:

[cid:image009.png@01D73BB4.AC571820]

With all that in mind, going back to the UI types, how do we know whether “1”
represents an integer
or float?  We don’t.  I think that needs to be fixed in the spec.

The next question is whether all these types are (especially Integer vs. Float)
are for the purposes of
humans (reading/writing these files), or the parser (to know when to flag a
mistake), or for the executable
model (to get what it needs without having to do any conversions or casting)?
Answering these questions
will hopefully help in figuring out how to fix the spec., and what the
resolution for this BUG should be
for the parser developer.

Thanks,

Arpad
=========================================================================================

From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 6:26 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] New agenda topic for this week

Thanks to the Quality Task Group, we have a new BUG report against the IBISCHK
parser, #216.  The Quality Task Group suggests that the Editorial Task Group is
best suited to recommending a resolution to the bug.

The bug text may be found at the link below.  We will take a few minutes at the
next Editorial Task Group meeting to discuss potential solutions.

https://ibis.org/bugs/ibischk/bug216.txt

Thanks in advance…

  *   MM

Follow-Ups:
- [ibis-editorial] Re: New agenda topic for this week
  - From: Muranyi, Arpad

References:
- [ibis-editorial] New agenda topic for this week
  - From: Mirmak, Michael
- [ibis-editorial] Re: New agenda topic for this week
  - From: Muranyi, Arpad

[ibis-editorial] Re: New agenda topic for this week

Other related posts: