-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Handle units of literal constants by means of rules for the empty unit #3257
base: MCP/0027
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 22 commits
7524b11
1309d10
2dfb4e8
0c62f41
203c16e
5d42065
fc4abde
b86567b
1f5131c
3291a73
f639afc
3a3b1f0
e411347
f3755a2
fccda32
89092ba
82bb062
99ff3c9
13529f7
847e645
ebfc229
232c4fa
9aeb15f
a28b795
089f554
35e4f01
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ | ||
# Modelica Change Proposal MCP-0027<br/>Units of Literal Constants | ||
Francesco Casella, Henrik Tidefelt | ||
|
||
**(In Development)** | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
The purpose of this MCP is to allow more unit errors to be detected by giving more expressions the unit `"1"` instead of having an undefined unit. | ||
The problem with undefined unit is that it gets in the way of carrying out checking of units (which tools tend to deal with by not checking units at all where this happens). | ||
|
||
## Revisions | ||
| Date | Description | | ||
| --- | --- | | ||
| 2022-10-04 | Henrik Tidefelt. Filling this document with initial content. | | ||
|
||
## Contributor License Agreement | ||
All authors of this MCP or their organizations have signed the "Modelica Contributor License Agreement". | ||
|
||
## Rationale | ||
FIXME | ||
|
||
## Backwards Compatibility | ||
As current Modelica doesn't clearly reject some models with non-sensical combination of units, this MCP will break backwards compatibility by turning at least some of these invalid. | ||
|
||
## Tool Implementation | ||
None, so far. | ||
|
||
### Experience with Prototype | ||
N/A | ||
|
||
## Required Patents | ||
To the best of our knowledge, there are no patents that would conflict with the incorporation of this MCP. | ||
|
||
## References | ||
(None.) |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -89,3 +89,289 @@ \section{The Syntax of Unit Expressions}\label{the-syntax-of-unit-expressions} | |
|
||
The unit expression \lstinline!"T"! means tesla, but note that the letter \lstinline!T! is also the symbol for the prefix tera which has a multiplier value of 10\textsuperscript{12}. | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
|
||
\section{Unit Checking}\label{unit-checking} | ||
|
||
How to verify that units are used in compatible ways is current not fully determined by the specification. | ||
This section gives rules for certain situations, but in general tools should reason according to standard dimensional analysis. | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Standard Dimensional Analysis}\label{standard-dimensional-analysis} | ||
|
||
This section gives an incomplete characterization of ``standard dimensional analysis'', also referred to as just \firstuse{dimensional analysis}. | ||
What is described below applies to unit checking in Modelica -- \emph{dimensional analysis} could have additional meanings in other contexts. | ||
While Modelica has a concept of \willintroduce{empty units} (described in later sections), standard dimensional analysis only deals with non-empty units such as \lstinline!"m"!, \lstinline!"m/s"!, or \lstinline!"1"!. | ||
It consists of two parts: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Unit compatibility requirements. | ||
\item | ||
Rules for deriving the unit of an expression. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Unit compatibility requirements that must be met in Modelica: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Dimensional homogeneity: The two sides of an equation or assignment statement must have the same unit. | ||
\item | ||
The expression of a binding equation must have the same unit as the component to which it belongs (special case of dimensional homogeneity). | ||
\item | ||
The two operands of the additive operators \lstinline!+! and \lstinline!-! must have the same unit. | ||
\item | ||
The two connectors in a \lstinline!connect!-equation must agree on all units inside the connectors (follows from dimensional homogeneity and additive operator rule). | ||
\item | ||
In a function call, the unit of an argument expression must match the unit of the corresponding function input component. | ||
\item | ||
Other situations where unit compatibility might seem natural are currently not covered by the specification, but could become additional unit compatibility requirements in the future. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
The requirements above apply to non-empty as well as empty units, but both \willintroduce{unit propagation} and \willintroduce{unit inference} (described below) need to be considered when verifying the requirements. | ||
|
||
% TODO: Replace these examples by giving unit semantics where operators and built-in functions are defined in the specification, | ||
% and just include some links to places where such semantics are given. | ||
Unit derivation in Modelica: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
The result of additive operators has the same unit as the operands. | ||
\item | ||
The result of multiplication has a unit obtained by multiplying the operands' units. | ||
\item | ||
Built-in operators such as \lstinline!pre! and \lstinline!previous! preserve units, while \lstinline!der! changes the unit by dividing it by \lstinline!"s"!. | ||
\item | ||
Other expressions are not yet covered by the specification. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Empty and Undefined Units}\label{empty-and-undefined-units} | ||
|
||
In situations where the specification does not prescribe how to determine the unit of an expression, the unit of that expression is said to be \firstuse[undefined unit]{undefined}. | ||
It is then not possible for a tool to reject or approve the equation (or other construct) with support in the specification, and options for the tool include silently not performing unit checking, or applying checks based on dimensional analysis. | ||
|
||
The unit of an expression can also be defined as being \firstuse[empty unit]{empty}, see below. | ||
In certain places (see below), expressions with empty unit can be implicitly cast to suitable units. | ||
When an expression with empty unit is implicitly cast to some unit, that unit is referred to as the \firstuse{inferred unit} of the expression. | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Unit Propagation}\label{unit-propagation} | ||
|
||
The main work of unit checking is performed on the flattened model, with the exception that \lstinline!connect!-equations need to be considered for \firstuse{unit propagation}. | ||
|
||
Unit propagation is the act of replacing the empty unit of an instantiated component by some other unit in order to fulfill some of the most obvious unit compatibility requirements. | ||
It is the first step of the unit checking procedure, being independent of both unit derivation and unit inference. | ||
Unit propagation takes place in the following situations: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Simple binding equations (\cref{equation-categories}): | ||
When a component is declared with empty \lstinline!unit!-attribute and has a binding equation with just a component reference on the right-hand side, the unit of the right-hand side replaces the empty unit. | ||
\item | ||
\lstinline!connect!-equations: | ||
Units can be propagated in both directions of a \lstinline!connect!-equation. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Notation: The \emph{\lstinline!unit!-attribute of a component} refers to the attribute as given in the model. | ||
The \emph{unit of a component} refers to the component's unit after unit propagation has been carried out. | ||
|
||
\begin{nonnormative} | ||
The reason to not propagate units of non-simple binding equations is to avoid bootstrapping problems where unit propagation depends on unit derivation, and unit derivation depends on unit propagation. | ||
If the restrictions on unit propagation would be relaxed in the future, this would be a backwards compatible change as it only means that there would be less need to write out units explicitly. | ||
\end{nonnormative} | ||
|
||
\begin{nonnormative} | ||
For unit propagation in \lstinline!connect!-equations, it is recommended to perform the propagation on the connection sets to avoid diagnostics involving two connectors where neither is declared with a non-empty unit. | ||
By considering a connection set, a diagnostic message can omit all the connectors where the unit is empty, and only report examples of connectors in the set with mismatched non-empty units. | ||
\end{nonnormative} | ||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
The following illustrates unit propagation and its limitations: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real x(unit = "m") = 1.0; // OK: No unit propagation. | ||
Real y = x; // OK: Unit propagation assigns y the unit "m". | ||
Real z = y; // OK: Unit propagation assigns z the unit "m". | ||
Real w = 2 * z; // Error: No unit propagation as 2 * z isn't simple. | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
(The rules making the binding equation for \lstinline!x! OK will be given in the sections below.) | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Bottom-Up Unit Derivation}\label{bottom-up-unit-derivation} | ||
|
||
After completed unit propagation, the unit of every expression shall be determined in order to be able to verify unit compatibility requirements. | ||
The derivation is a bottom-up analysis of the expression tree, involving expression-specific rules and a simple form of unit inference. | ||
Separate rules assign units to all expression tree leaves (such as variables and literals). | ||
For a general non-leaf expression $\mathit{op}(e_{1},\, e_{2},\, \ldots, e_{n})$ where $\mathit{op}$ symolizes the kind of expression and the $e_{i}$ represent the immediate children in the expression tree, unit derivation follows these steps: | ||
\begin{enumerate} | ||
\item | ||
Derive the unit of each subexpression $e_{i}$. | ||
The so obtained unit of the expression might be empty as well as non-empty. | ||
\item | ||
If there is a unit derivation rule for $\mathit{op}$ matching the units of the $e_{i}$, apply that rule. | ||
Note that some expressions can handle subexpressions with empty unit, often assigning the empty unit to the entire $\mathit{op}$-expression as well. | ||
\item | ||
Otherwise: | ||
\begin{enumerate} | ||
\def\labelenumii{\alph{enumii}.} | ||
\item | ||
Infer a non-empty unit for each $e_{i}$ that has empty unit, and let $e'_{i}$ denote the subexpressions after unit inference. | ||
How the unit is inferred depends on the kind of expression, and is described in \cref{unit-inference}. | ||
\item | ||
If there is a unit derivation rule for $\mathit{op}(e'_{1},\, e'_{2},\, \ldots, e'_{n})$, apply that rule. | ||
\item | ||
Otherwise, the $\mathit{op}$-expression has a unit error. | ||
\end{enumerate} | ||
\end{enumerate} | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Unit Inference}\label{unit-inference} | ||
|
||
In Modelica unit checking, \firstuse{unit inference} refers to the implicit casting of an expression with empty unit to a corresponding expression with non-empty unit. | ||
An expression having empty unit always gets an inferred non-empty unit when appearing in a context where the empty unit is not allowed. | ||
|
||
When encountering the empty unit in the following situations, the inferred unit is (uniquely) determined by ensuring that unit compatibility requirements are fulfilled: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
In binding equations and modifications: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item The entire expression of the binding or modification. | ||
\item When the entire expression is an array construction, array concatenation and array range, then apply rules recursively for the direct subexpressions. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
The entire argument expression in a function call. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Comparing it to #3266 (comment) it seems that it has the same critical flaw. In general, my issue with some proposals is that there are way too much text and theory, but too little actual practice. I can see that the other proposal - changed to not apply to addition and subtraction - does detect actual modeling issues; but also that it finds a number of issues that aren't that important and will take time to correct. I don't know if people are actually willing to put in the effort to correct - and I don't know the corresponding result for this proposal. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it needs to be seen in the light of me looking for a solid ground on which to implement unit checking in System Modeler, where the specification at least marks a starting point for something that can evolve into a set of rules that make unit consistency a model feature that is portable between tools. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain what you mean by that, because to me this proposal is very clear? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are just describing the properties of a sound logical system, as opposed to a complete one. |
||
% To keep the design close to the bare minimum, this part is currently excluded: | ||
%\item | ||
% For a translation-time constant with value 0.0: | ||
% \begin{itemize} | ||
% \item Expressions constituting the entire side of an equality or relation. | ||
% \item The right hand side of an assignment. | ||
% \item The direct subexpressions of array construction, array concatenation, and array range. | ||
% \end{itemize} | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Otherwise, the inferred unit is \lstinline!"1"!. | ||
henrikt-ma marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
Consider unit inference in the binding equation below: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = 1.5; | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
With the pseudo-code form \lstinline!unit($e$, $u$)! representing the expression $e$ having empty unit being cast to unit $u$, the binding equation after unit inference could be expressed explicitly as: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = unit(1.5, "m"); // Using pseudo-code operator 'unit'. | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
Note that unit inference has not changed the empty unit of \lstinline!1.5! itself, but that it has introduced an implicit unit cast \emph{around} \lstinline!1.5! in order to fulfill the unit compatibility requirement. | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
|
||
\subsection{Expressions with Empty Unit}\label{expressions-with-empty-unit} | ||
|
||
This section describes conditions under which an expression has empty unit. | ||
Conditions not given here must not be interpreted as definitely not implying empty unit; instead, the unit may be currently undefined for some expressions, allowing the unit to be properly defined in future versions of the specification. | ||
|
||
Basic expressions defined to have empty unit: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
\lstinline!Real! literals. | ||
\item | ||
\lstinline!Integer! expressions implicitly cast to \lstinline!Real!. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Expressions defined to \emph{not} propagate the empty unit up the expression tree, thereby forcing inference of unit \lstinline!"1"!: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division operators when either operand has non-empty unit. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Actually, in these cases you don't 'force inference of unit "1"', nor propagate the empty unit, but these expressions (i.e. the operators + operands) propagate the unit of the operand with the non-empty unit (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division when in numerator) or its reciprocal (division when in denominator). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe better? "If an addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, operands that have empty unit get inferred unit "1" if the other operand has non-empty unit, and remain empty-unit otherwise" There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The way it is formulated comes from the need to leave gray areas open for future design, with the understanding that tools may take the easy way out and propagate empty units up the expression three whenever the specification doesn't define what to do, in order to not reject things without support in the specification. I am thus categorizing all expressions (where one or more subexpressions have empty unit) according to:
Maybe there are alternative ways of achieving the same effect, but I'm not sure how to do it without ending up with a proposal that covers more than what the language group wants as a solution for MCP-0027. In the future, when all cases are covered by the specification, there should be an easier way to express the rule:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To be clear, it's fine to have grey areas (if you mean areas that the spec does not cover), they just should be clearly delineated. IMO, having grey areas is not a contradiction to having a clearly defined process for the rest. I think I understand what you mean better, but I'll have to think on this a bit, I'm a bit confused. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This that mean we are ready to close this conversation as resolved? |
||
\item | ||
Right operand of binary exponentiation. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If you want to specify a "bottom-up" approach as you have previously expressed, an expression cannot be required to know about its parents, only children. I suggest reformulating the operator items throughout to be from the perspective of the operator expression, not the operand, and adjusting the resulting units of other expressions accordingly There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's a good point that I've also considered myself. The bottom-up nature of the approach needs to be crystal clear, or else much of the point of this proposal is lost. I'll start with something that may be overly clear, and then one might be able to shorten the formulation once everybody is on board… There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Better now? (It turned out that I also needed to say a few words on unit propagation in order to separate between the declared There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I like what you added in the section There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about how to further simplify the design or its presentation. (I've considered completely separating everything concerning the empty unit from the reasoning about non-empty units. Then I think one would end up with a fairly short list of rules for where empty units may appear in the expression tree, and how they can be propagated up the tree.)
Yes, this is the idea I'm trying to convey. Consider determining the unit of exponentiation here:
|
||
\item | ||
Component references outside of functions, where the component's unit (after unit propagation has been carried out) is empty (possibly by not being specified). | ||
(Unit checking involving user-defined functions with empty unit on inputs and outputs is currently not defined.) | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Built-in non-array operators, functions, and special expressions that propagate any unit (including empty) up the expression tree: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
When all operands have the same unit: negation, addition, and subtraction (scalar or element-wise), see {array-element-wise-addition-subtraction-and-string-concatenation}. | ||
\item | ||
The \lstinline!abs! function, see \cref{modelica:abs}. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Transcendental functions that propagate both unit \lstinline!"1"! and the empty unit up the expression tree: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
All of the elementary mathematical functions listed in \cref{built-in-mathematical-functions-and-external-built-in-functions}. | ||
(Whether some of these also accept other dimensionless units such as \lstinline!"rad"! for the input argument is currently not defined.) | ||
\item | ||
The only binary of these functions, \lstinline!atan2!, requires both arguments to have the same unit, and accepts any unit. | ||
The result of \lstinline!atan2! has empty unit only when both arguments have empty unit; otherwise the unit of the result is \lstinline!"1"!. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
Special situations in which the empty unit is propagated up the expression tree: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Multiplication and division when both operands have empty unit. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Also addition/subtraction? Or all operators? I'm not sure... There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, this is where I see a possibility to simplify the presentation by concentrating on just the propagations of the empty unit up the expression tree. Then we get this simple rule:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sounds good. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I gave it a try, and it seems to me that this led to considerable simplification of the proposal. Maybe we could consider this conversation resolved, and continue the discussion in conversations attached to the updated text? (By the way, I'll be away until Monday.) |
||
\end{itemize} | ||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
Consider unit checking of the following binding equation: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = 1 + 2.5 * 3; | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
The unit of the binding equation right-hand side is determined as follows: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item The \lstinline!Real! literal \lstinline!2.5! has empty unit. | ||
\item The \lstinline!Integer! literals \lstinline!1! and \lstinline!3! are implicitly cast to \lstinline!Real!, and therefore have empty unit. | ||
\item The multiplication \lstinline!2.5 * 3! has empty unit, as multiplication can propagate the empty unit of both operands. | ||
\item The addition \lstinline!1 + (2.5 * 3)! has empty unit, as addition can propagate any unit as long as both operands have the same unit. | ||
\item The entire right-hand side expression gets inferred unit \lstinline!"m"! in order to be compatible with the component's declared \lstinline!unit!-attribute. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
Consider unit checking of the following erroneous binding equation for \lstinline!y!: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real x(unit = "m") = 1.0; | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = x^2 / 2; | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
The unit of the binding equation right-hand side is determined as follows: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item The unit of \lstinline!x! is \lstinline!"m"!, and dimensional analysis gives that \lstinline!x^2! has unit \lstinline!"m2"! | ||
\item The \lstinline!Real! literal \lstinline!1.0! has empty unit, and gets inferred unit \lstinline!"m"!. | ||
\item As the left operand of \lstinline!x^2 / 2! is non-empty, the right operand cannot be empty, and hence empty unit of \lstinline!2! is implicitly cast to \lstinline!"1"!. | ||
\item Dimensional analysis then gives that the unit of \lstinline!x^2 / 2! is \lstinline!"m2"!, which is an error due to the required unit being \lstinline!"m"!. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
Difference between using a literal and a constant: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
function f | ||
input Real u(unit = "m"); | ||
output Real y(unit = "m") = u; | ||
end f; | ||
constant Real pi = 3.14; | ||
Real x(unit = "m") = f(3.14); // OK. | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = f(pi); // Error. | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
The first call to \lstinline!f! is OK due to unit inference making \lstinline!"m"! the inferred unit of \lstinline!3.14!. | ||
The second call to \lstinline!f! is an error because the component reference \lstinline!pi! has an inferred unit of \lstinline!"1"! by itself, which prevents inference of the unit required by the function call. | ||
\end{example} | ||
|
||
\begin{example} | ||
Consider the potential consequences of an undefined unit in the following binding equation: | ||
\begin{lstlisting}[language=modelica] | ||
Real y(unit = "m") = sin(1.57); | ||
\end{lstlisting} | ||
To see that the unit of the binding equation right-hand side is undefined, note that: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item The \lstinline!Real! literal \lstinline!1.57! has empty unit. | ||
\item The expression \lstinline!sin(1.57)! is not covered by the specification, and hence has undefined unit. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
If a tool wants to proceed according to ``standard dimensional analysis'', alternatives include: | ||
\begin{itemize} | ||
\item | ||
Assume that \lstinline!sin! is a mapping from unit \lstinline!"1"! to unit \lstinline!"1"!. | ||
The unit of \lstinline!1.57! then defaults to \lstinline!"1"! (alternatively, the same unit could be obtained by inference). | ||
The unit of \lstinline!sin(1.57)! is then found to be \lstinline!"1"!, which is an error due to the required unit being \lstinline!"m"!. | ||
\item | ||
Assume that \lstinline!sin! preserves both the unit \lstinline!"1"! and the empty unit. | ||
The empty unit of \lstinline!1.57! gets propagated to \lstinline!sin(1.57)!, which in turn gets inferred unit \lstinline!"m"!. | ||
\end{itemize} | ||
\end{example} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not a friend of "soft" qualifiers like "certain", "some of", etc. in specification texts. I think it would be better to enumerate all the specific places/sections/cases you mean to include in this statement. Include a "fall-through" case handling the situation if no element of the enumeration fits, if appropriate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The paragraph is part of the section introduction, so it isn't meant to convey the details. I agree that later, when the actual rule is given, one has to avoid formulations that risk causing unnecessary ambiguity.
Does it work better now, with the reformulated presentation of the corresponding list of cases? (I don't think this list needs a fall-through case, as it should always be possible to add more cases in a backwards compatible way.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should it then be marked non-normative? Otherwise, it's normative, right? (I'm not too firm on the procedural details of this)
I can't tell which list you mean here?
This is not a contradiction! You can first specify (random example: operators covered by some procedure):
and then later refine by adding more cases
The set of the fallthrough/uncovered cases shrinks by adding more cases, but it's always crystal clear which ones are "undefined" (first: everything except +,-, then everything except +,-,*,/)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure. It's a matter of style where we have at least decided to not explicitly mark chapter introductions as non-normative even though their nature is non-normative. In the case at hand, I'd say that the (see below) should be sufficient to ensure the reader that there's a specific meaning of certain places to be found by looking at the sections below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I refer to formulations like this one:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The nice thing about this list (When encountering the empty unit in…) is that it doesn't leave any situation undefined. In the other cases, the unit isn't determined by the context, but always becomes
"1"
as (now) described directly below the list.