RE: Is there a second? Re: motion elementary functions
I would like to second it.
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. Baker Kearfott
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:26 AM
To: Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg
Cc: stds-1788
Subject: Is there a second? Re: motion elementary functions
Does anyone second this motion?
Baker
Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
> P1788
> please find attached a motion on elementay functions. It specifies which
> functions are required and which are to be recommended. That selection
> as well as the fact that there are 2 different lists shall be subject to
> discussion.
> The precise definition of the evaluation of the functions depends on the
> exception handling strategy (cf motion 8) as well as requirements for
> accuracy (see Vienna proposal) which are not yet decided.
> But I think we should vote on the functionality first, and then fill in
> the details for implementation later.
> any comments welcome
> Juergen
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------