Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: Discussion period begins
> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 20:47:25 +0200
> From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: Discussion period begins
>
> On 2009-08-09 19:38:12 +0200, Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
> > Arnold Neumaier schrieb:
> > >The motion was for having a unique NaI, in which case the
> > >propagation rule is OK.
> > >
> > >But I think there should either be no NaI (which I'd favor),
> > >or there should be NaI with payload.
> >
> > what do you propose for illegal construction ?
> > 1. return emptyset
> > 2. return emptyset with payload
> > 3. return emptyset and set a sticky flag
> > 4. just set the flag
> > 5. raise an exception
> > 6. terminate
>
> 7. implementation defined.
> 8. undefined behavior (but an implementation is free to describe how
> this is handled).
>
> . . .
>
> --
> 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)
Folks,
I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with the two
new options Vincent offers in this case.
One of the biggest mistakes that happens over & over
again in 754 is to permit implementation dependent
variance in behavior when there was no compelling
reason for it. Usually, it came about because we
could not agree on a thing. Even trivial things.
Please don't repeat that mistake. While we each may
have a personal preference in any particular situation,
ANY answer that is standardized is better than EVERY
answer being possible.
For 1788, even more than for 754, behaving different
from one platform to another would be a disaster. It
destroys the central theme of assuring the customer
that the results are correct.
Therefore, grit your teeth, bite the bullet, or whatever
your favorite metaphor is & make a decision.
Any decision.
Any SINGLE decision.
And stick to it.
Make EVERYONE stick to it.
Dan