Subject: Re: [OpenJade] Bugfix for +/- vs. length-specs From: Matthias Clasen <clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:47:27 +0200 |
> > > On the contrary, the standard is quite clear. The description of > > the basic arithmetic operators from 12.5.2 is: > > > > These procedures behave in the same way as their counterparts on > > quantities, except that they shall return a length-spec if any <--- > > of their arguments is a length-spec (as opposed to just a length). > > You're right; I was looking at the signatures above that paragraph. The > ones for + and - are not consistent with this description. > If you look up even higher, you'll notice that they *are* consistent, since: Whenever a value of type length-spec is required, a length (a quantity of dimension 1) may always be used. -- Matthias Clasen, Tel. 0761/203-5606 Email: clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [OpenJade] Bugfix for +/- vs. l, Frank A. Christoph | Thread | Re: [OpenJade] Bugfix for +/- vs. l, Matthias Clasen |
Re: [OpenJade] Bugfix for +/- vs. l, Matthias Clasen | Date | Information about the build, Didier PH Martin |
Month |