Re: Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 NO
On 2009-05-08 13:27:08 -0400, Nate Hayes wrote:
> It also limits consideration and discussion to:
>
> "an environment that conforms to 754-2008"
>
> I don't believe its good idea to limit discussion this way. It
> prevents any consideration of non-standard extentions or
> simplifications of 754 to be used in the interval arithmetic, such
> as 0*X=0 for any interval X (even when X is unbounded).
I don't think the current motion says anything about the behavior
on *intervals*, but anyway... I agree with you when you say "I don't
see the current motion (or Arnold's alternative) is necessary or
useful", at least for the time being. When writing a new standard,
one should have implementations in mind, and as most platforms
provide IEEE 754 arithmetic, the relation to IEEE 754 (when needed)
will come naturally.
> In my view, the selling point of intervals is not 754-compliance,
> but reliable computing. So I think this motion puts the emphasis in
> the wrong place and may lead to missed opportunities.
I agree.
--
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)