Print

Print


My first reaction: Yes... but I'm not quite convinced on the appropriateness 
of the use of ".." for open in an interval using the / notation.

Instead of 20040101/..
and        ../20040101

why not 
 20040101/
and
 /20040101

Even if we adopt // for comments it still works
 20040101///After
 /20040101//Before

Is there any reason to need ".." or any other symbols ?
It seems (at least this moment) linguistically redundant..

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:06:03 -0400, Denenberg, Ray wrote
> I think I've changed my view on this (in the past few hours), I've thought 
it through with hopefully more clarity than before.
> 
> I DON'T think we need to justify the before/after feature, because I think 
it fits naturally with our syntax (as a few of you have hinted).
> 
> We represent list using comma and double-dot, enclosing the list with 
square or curly braces to mean "one of" or "all of", 
> so
> [1667,1668, 1670..1672]
> means one of the years 1667, 1668, 1670, 1671, 1672
> 
> and
> {1667,1668, 1670..1672}
> means all of the years.
> 
> More simply,
> 
> [1670..1672]
> means one of the years  1670, 1671, 1672
> 
> and
> {1670..1672}
> means all three years.
> 
> It seems a natural extension that
> 
> [..1672]
> would mean some year preceeding (or equal to) 1672
> 
> and
> {..1672}
> all years preceeding or equal to 1672.
> 
> And that
> 
> [1672..]
> means some year following (or equal to) 1672
> 
> and
> {1672..}
> All years including or following 1672
> 
> And I would go further to suggest that we replace "open" with double-dot, 
so
> 
> 20040101/..
> means the interval beginning January 1 2004 with no end date
> 
> I have more to say about intervals but will save it for a later message.
> 
> --Ray


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967