Re: A proposal for the next motion
> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:41:03 +0200
> From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: A proposal for the next motion
>
> On 2009-05-13 10:03:05 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> > (2) An implementation shall be called 754-conforming if: (i) its
> > underlying system is 754-conforming (Definition D3) and if the
> > implementation supports intervals of each of the five basic 754 floating
> ^^^^
> > point formats: binary32, binary64, binary128, decimal64, and decimal128;
> > or (ii) it is functionally indistinguishable from case (i).
>
> Do you really mean "each" here? In particular, I don't think that
> supporting both binary *and* decimal is always useful in practice.
> And I think that the IEEE 754 requirements concerning the formats
> are sufficient, and 1788 shouldn't demand more than IEEE 754.
>
> --
> Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
Vincent,
I think what must have been intended here is the interval
support of each of the basic floating-point formats also
supported by the underlying 754 environment.
There is language further down discussing variable precision
formats as optional in much the same way. I also presume
them to be supported if they are supported as floating-point
types in the underlying environment.
Or so I believe...
Dan