RE: Motion 4: P1788 on non-754?
I am in favor of Arnold's wording, it make it very clear that we are
aiming at being independent of IEEE-754 (and thus, applicable outside
it) as opposed to a possible interpretation of the original proposal
that we DO NOT do anything outside IEEE-754.
I agree with Dan and George that in general, wordsmithing may take too
much time, but to me, this Arnold's rewording is worth it because it
drastically clarifies the meaning and avoids misinterpretation.
Shall I say that I second his amendment?
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arnold
Neumaier
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:59 AM
To: Corliss, George
Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Motion 4: P1788 on non-754?
Corliss, George schrieb:
>
> I do not have better wording to suggest,
I think it will not be difficult to make everything independent of
IEEE-754. Indeed, the Vienna Proposal does exactly this.
Thus I propose to modify the motion text as follows:
===Motion text===
P1788 strives to be independent of IEEE-754 as far as meaningful,
but assumes a computer architectures that is 754-compliant to the
extent this is necessary for a meaningful interpretation.
Arnold Neumaier