Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: Discussion period begins
On 2009-08-10 03:39:10 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> When we make these choices we must keep speed in mind
> but correctness is always to be preferred over speed.
You don't want correctness here, you want *full* reproducibility
(even on buggy code). That's very different.
> > > It destroys the central theme of assuring the customer that
> > > the results are correct.
> >
> > Getting different results doesn't mean that some are incorrect.
> > And conversely, getting a single result across various platforms
> > doesn't mean that the result is correct.
>
> Again, you get directly to the point: The same answer
> across platforms is not guarenteed to be the correct one.
>
> It is our job to make sure that the answer we specify as
> standard *IS* the correct one.
If there's a bug in the customer's program, it may not be correct.
So, why not assume that if an illegal construction is used (which
is seen as a bug), then the result may be undefined?
> But we have two goals for the public here.
>
> The first is to use our expertise to create a standard
> within which correct answers can & do happen.
>
> The second is to teach the public that it is true. That
> is, we must make them BELIEVE it.
If you want to teach the public that there is only one possible
answer, you are lying to them.
--
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)