Re: Motion 4
> From: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@xxxxxxxx>
> To: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Motion 4
> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:57:05 +0200
>
> Dear John,
>
> I find the terms of this motion quite confusing. Did you mean "P1788
> compliance implies IEEE 754-2008 compliance"?
>
> Also, the terms "architectures" is maybe too specific. What about a
> hardware that is IEEE 754-2008 compliant, but an environment on top of it
> (compiler and/or operating system) that is not IEEE 754-2008 compliant?
>
> I would thus have said "An environment that is not IEEE 754-2008
> compliant is not P1788 compliant".
>
> Paul Zimmermann
>
Paul,
I cannot claim to speak for John but as we are in the
discussion period I feel free to discuss it.
IMHO, this motion is not about the systems which are
compliant at all. It is about us, 1788. The purpose
is to give us some common & simple context which we all
work with & within which we can couch the requirements
of our standard.
Further it simplifies our discussions by not requiring
us to consider what intervals look like on, say, an old
hexadecimal system or some newer symmetric level index
system.
Or, as John puts it, KISS.
Dan