Re: Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 open for VOTE
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
The motion text is as follows:
===============================================================
===Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754===
Proposer: John Pryce
Seconder: Dan Zuras
===Motion text===
In our work on 1788 we will limit the scope of our consideration
to those systems which present an environment that conforms to
754-2008. This limitation is done without prejudice and for the
purpose of K.I.S.S. (Keeping It Simple Stupid) to simplify our
discussions and specifications.
I strongly recommend voting NO, accompanied by a statement that a
change of the motion text to
===Revised 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.
would lead to a YES vote.
Justification: I find the current motion wording so vague/misleading
that a better formulation is definitely needed. Otherwise it is
not clear what has been voted upon, and the net effect of the vote
is that nothing is decided by it.
The discussion following the motion proposal revealed that the
intention behind the motion was only vaguely reflected by
the actual formulation chosen, and that literally following the
motion text would not even allow us to propose changes to 754-2008.
Note that the few who voted already are free to revise their vote
simply by revoting.
Arnold Neumaier
===Rationale===
This motion is offered in the spirit of simplifying our task. We
are all familiar with the characteristics of 754 environments.
Confining our thoughts and discussions to such systems will give
us common ground for understanding. And 1788 specifications
couched in terms of that understanding can be made simpler than
without it. Issues of things like the role and use of NaNs and
infinity, signed zeros, transcendental functions, support of
basic formats, and the like are all details that are not part of
this motion. But all of those details are made easier to discuss
in the future if this motion passes.
The issue of whether or not a non-754-conforming system may yet
conform to 1788 is also not part of this motion. That will
depend on all the other normative statements we make in the
future. We will almost certainly not use all the specifications
of 754 to specify 1788. But it is expected that most such
systems will not conform. The Cell chip may be an exception.
Passing this motion saves us time and misunderstanding in the
future. That's what this motion is about.
ssing this motion saves us time and misunderstanding in the future.
That's what this motion is about.
===============================================================
Sincerely,
Ralph Baker Kearfott
(Acting chair: IEEE P1788)