Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: Discussion period begins
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:07:07 +0200
> From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
Again you are correct: I want more than correctness.
I want the customer to KNOW that everything in the code
that is the responsibility of 1788 is correct. I want
to make sure that any bugs that are found in it are the
responsibility of the programmer NOT 1788.
Unless that's true, we will fail.
Unless the customer BELIEVES it, we also fail.
>
> . . .
>
> 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
If you believe that is the only possible answer then you
believe that 1788 cannot standardize an arithmetic that
gives provably & believably correct answers.
You might be right.
If you are, this standard is neither needed not possible.
But I think we should make the attempt if only to test
your hypothesis.
After all, there is always the possibility you might be
wrong. :-)
Time will tell...
Dan