Re: Motion 4: P1788 on non-754?
On 2009-04-17 05:35:19 -0600, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:
> 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.
I agree with you.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)