Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: NO, several NaIs please
> From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M007.01_NaI: NO, several NaIs please
> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:03:09 +0100
> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dan & all
> << George, this counts as a vote, please. >>
>
> Sorry not to reply before start of voting period.
>
> On 24 Aug 2009, at 20:04, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> > P.S. - On the merits: I would argue in favor of no NaI or
> > just one. The argument about the historical uselessness
> > of the NaN payload is a compelling one in my opinion.
>
> Seems to me its "historical uselessness" (nice phrase) has much to do
> with no _official_ payload values and meanings having been defined.
>
> . . .
>
> I take a different message from Dan, about the "historical
> uselessness" of NaN payloads, and it's a message Dan feels strongly
> about:
> DEFINE, DEFINE, DEFINE.
>
> So I cast my vote for "NO, I want several NaIs", and I want us to
> specify them.
>
> Regards
>
> John
Folks,
John is quite correct & it is this last that is my meaning.
NaNs in 754 have been 'historically useless' (IHMO) precisely
BECAUSE we could not settle on a common behavior across
platforms. No common behavior. No common code written.
No utility for NaNs. (Well, beyond their function as a
placeholder for undefined results.)
Still, it is early in the game for 1788. We should have that
discussion now. If we can agree then I would vote in favor
of that agreement.
Vincent & I were trying to do just that privately & even the
two of us could not agree. Collectively we have much more
variance in opinion.
So, I will also cast a NO vote for this (George please note).
For much the same reason as John but with a little bit of
doubt thrown in there concerning our ability to come to an
agreement that 754 could not. :-)
Yours,
Dan