Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [IEEE P1788 er subgroup]: Kaucher intervals (Was: Undefined behaviour (Was: ...))

Dear Dan and Baker, et. al.

I'm confused.
It seems there are people in the P1788 group that aren't entirely familliar with modal intervals or what potential advantages they may contribute to designing the standard. So wouldn't it be more fair to let the advocates of the modal intervals present a proposal first, before such a big and important decision is voted on? 

Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC



----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: [IEEE P1788 er subgroup]: Kaucher intervals (Was: Undefined behaviour (Was: ...))



Dan (et al),

OK.  Perhaps a motion should be made to the effect
"modal intervals should be explicitly included
in the standard," (or "modal intervals should
not be explicitly included in the standard").  Processing
that motion would then give us guidance on what
to work on, including forming a modal arithmetic
subgroup or not.

In the mean time, please discuss your idea within the
er subgroup.  We do want to create a clear, simple
standard, and we don't want to make it difficult
to include promising new technologies.

Best regards,

Baker

On 3/17/2009 8:52 PM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:15:10 -0500
From: Ralph Baker Kearfott<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: stds-1788<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IEEE P1788 er subgroup]: Kaucher intervals (Was: Undefined
behaviour (Was: ...))
To: owner-stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Would you like me to create a subgroup mailing list on
hilbert.louisiana.edu,
something like stds-1788-modal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

Baker



Baker,

I think we can, in the ER group, propose a method of
implementing intervals such that a correct version
of ordinary intervals can be had without preventing
some future (or optional) implementations from
using some form of non-standard intervals.

I can detail what I have in mind if you like but I
have not yet had a chance to discuss it with the ER
group&  I'd like to hear their opinions first.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying this is
not necessary at this time if you want to create an
ordinary interval standard while still protecting
the possibility of future modal intervals.

OK?

Dan





--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------