Re: Re-submission of motion 5: multiple-format arithmetic.
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>> Nate Hayes schrieb:
>>> John Pryce wrote:
>>
> .
> .
> .
>>>> I believe nothing in this motion and rationale hinders the
>>>> implementation of various forms of non-standard intervals -- Kahan,
>>>> modal, etc. -- as discussed at the end of Vienna/1.2.
>>>
>>> I've mentioned before this is simply not true. If traps or flags
>>> are only way to obtain NaI result from an interval operation such
>>> as 1/[-2,3], this
>>> is hinderance to efficient modal interval implementations.
>>
>> This is another eason why modal intervals should not be part of
>> the standard. It makes the latter unnecessarily complicated,
>> only to introduce an error-prone technique that can be safely handled
>> only by a tiny minority of users.
>>
>> Not deciding this issue (modal or not) very soon will constitute a
>> major quarrel in each issue to be decided.
>>
>
> Does someone wish to formulate and formally put forward a
> simple motion to decide whether or not the standard should
> explicitly contain specifications for modal arithmetic?
>
> Baker
I will not do this, as I agree with Michel it is not strictly a modal issue.
Voting out modal intervals at this point doesn't make the issue "go away" or
change my position in relation to Moore's classical intervals.
Nate