Motion P1788/M0005.02_Table_of_operations NO
NO
I think the motion is too long. It would be enough and useful to
provide the mathematical definition of the extension to intervals
first. The explicit expressions of the operations are direct
consequences of this definition, so they could be provided in apendix
with not so much comments about the way they are derived (I am
thinking of the long discussion presented in the motion about the
division by zero containing intervals, which sounds useless to me).
On the other hand, I think directed rounding and the requested
accuracy of roundings are a central topic that should be discussed and
voted in a separate motion.
Kind regards,
Alexandre Goldsztejn
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Vincent Lefevre<vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> NO
>
> (Note: I'm not really against this motion, but I find it rather useless.
> Said otherwise, I abstain, but as this is equivalent to a NO vote...)
>
> --
> 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 / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
>
--
Dr. Alexandre Goldsztejn
CNRS - University of Nantes
Office : +33 2 51 12 58 37 Mobile : +33 6 78 04 94 87
Web: www.goldsztejn.com
Email: alexandre.goldsztejn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx