Re: Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 NO
I heard an interesting talk a couple days ago by a grizzled old veteran of the standards wars in the area of industrial automation. He spoke on "Using the Standards Process for Competitive Advantage." His view favors the "codify existing practice." When standards try to break new ground, they NEVER are implemented, in his view. Interesting academic exercises, perhaps, but of no use.
Who thinks they NEED an interval arithmetic standard?
I suspect for most of us, "we" think "they" need an interval arithmetic standard, but "they" don't see the need.
George
On 5/7/09 1:40 PM, "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nate and stds-1788,
>
> Ah, yes. You have touched on something at least
> some standards bodies have
> been grappling with for decades: Do standards organizations
> codify existing practice, do they develop and mandate newer
> and better ways, or do they do both?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Baker
I believe it is an important question for the 1788 working group to find
agreement on.
On the one hand, it makes our job easier to simply standardize existing
754-compliant practices. On the other hand, I don't see this approach
maximizes the full commercial potential of interval computations.
IEEE 754 is one of the most successful computing standards, ever. So clearly
it is good idea to build on that reputation and legacy. But if it should be
taken "as is" for the basis of a standard for interval arithmetic, I am less
convinced.
Nate