CVS difference for ais/ai-00296.txt

Differences between 1.22 and version 1.23
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00296.txt

--- ais/ai-00296.txt	2005/12/15 02:44:02	1.22
+++ ais/ai-00296.txt	2006/04/20 05:31:48	1.23
@@ -2921,3 +2921,58 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Christoph Grein
+Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006  6:59 AM
+
+!topic Use of "inner product"
+!reference Ada 2005 RM G.3.1
+!from Christoph Grein 06-03-27
+!discussion
+
+G.3.1(34/2) In the case of those operations which are defined to involve
+an inner product, Constraint_Error may be raised if an intermediate
+result is outside the range of Real'Base even though the mathematical
+final result would not be.{involve an inner product (real)}
+
+G.3.1(40/2) This operation returns the inner product of Left and
+Right... This operation involves an inner product.
+
+G.3.1(56/2) This operation provides the standard mathematical operation
+for matrix multiplication... This operation involves inner products.
+
+Does "inner product" always mean the same here? I think the first
+sentence of (40/2) uses the term in a different (although strongly
+related) meaning. This should be clarified.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006  12:38 AM
+
+The technical term is "involve an inner product". The first sentence of
+G.3.1(40) does not use the word "involve", so it is using "inner product"
+without explicit definition. In that case, you have to refer to the
+references for definitions given in 1.3. The second sentence is using the
+technical term. So of course the uses are different; the words "inner
+product" in the second sentence have no independent meaning at all, they're
+just part of the technical term.
+
+The fact that the technical term is given explicitly in the second sentence
+should be a key to the reader that it means something different than in the
+first sentence. There's more chance for confusion in G.3.1(42/2), I think,
+where there is no use of the technical term.
+
+In any case, I haven't the foggiest idea of what sort of clarification you
+think is necessary. We could add an AARM note that says "of course, "involve
+an inner product" in the second sentence doesn't mean the same thing as
+"inner product" in the first sentence." But this is senseless; if they meant
+the same thing, why the heck would we repeat it? Moreover, there are
+literally thousands of places where words or phrases are used informally in
+the Standard; why explicitly note this one??
+
+And changing the wording seems both too late and unlikely to be helpful. How
+else could you describe the result of this function? Writing out the
+definition of "inner product" isn't going to clarify anything.
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent