Re: motion elementary functions
> From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: motion elementary functions
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:21:00 +0000
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> P1788 members
>
> On 10 Oct 2009, at 17:14, J=FCrgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
> > please find attached a motion on elementary functions.
>
> I attach a document with a table that compares the elementary
> functions offered in various standards, and suggests a friendly
> amendment to J=FCrgen's current motion 10. In particular it is, I
> think, more precise about a way to vote for or against each
> individual function. This procedure needs further hardening up, in my
>
> view, and I invite suggestions from our procedure Czar, George
> Corliss, to that end.
>
> John Pryce
>
Oh, John, I appreciate the work you have put into
compiling this table but I would REALLY recommend
against this course of action. Besides leading
to a different list for each voter, it puts an
extraordinary burden on our tabulator.
Let Jurgen propose the list he thinks is best.
Let us, as members of this group argue about the
details of that list during the discussion period.
Then let us vote it up or down on its merits.
We have plenty of time before we're done with this
issue. Time enough for someone to make later
motions to add or subtract functions from our list.
But please don't send us down a path so wide we are
all guarenteed to end up in different places.
Yours,
Dan