Proposed comments and changes to P754 draft (by Bob Davis)

[Michel Hack (1-914-784-7648) <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Hough wrote:
> So I'd standardize on basic formats:

The issue is whether narrower "storage" formats should be interchange
formats, i.e. defined by the standard.  It is true that different
applications might want a different partitioning of bits, but the two
formats at issue, Binary16 and Decimal32, have a reasonable layout,
AND existing implementations.  Should we not take advantage of this
and provide for a common interpretation for those environments where
they are found to be useful?

Nothing prevents different non-interchange formats to be defined for
specialised applications -- they could simply not be called Binary16
or Decimal32.  An environment that needs a narrow format would thus
be encouraged to select a standard format, unless the requirement to
be different is overwhelming.

Without guidance by the standard, such narrower formats might be
defined differently for weak reasons rather than strong reasons.

I assume this is the reasoning behind the new wider formats, for
which there are (as far as I know) no current implementations, but
where the standard's guidance is expected to lead to common ground
if and when such extensions are implemented.

Michel.
Sent: 2007-11-06 20:19:43 UTC