I vote YES on Motion 10.
Listening to the on-going discussion about pow(xx,yy), it is
clear that it (and related possibilities) need more detailed
Consideration. However, rather than voting NO, I choose to
vote YES and assume that the pow(xx,yy) questions will be
refined later.
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Haggerty Engineering #296
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
414-288-6599; -288-4400 (GasDay); -288-5579 (Fax)
Www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg
On 12/5/09 12:10 PM, "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NO
The value of a general power function for floating-point seems clear to me,
but I am a little skeptical of its value for interval computing. Mostly, the
idea it returns bounds not of a single function but of a family of functions
is a hard pill for me to swallow. If someone could provide practical
examples of why it is required, I would change my vote to YES. Otherwise I
think it should be removed and pow(x,y) given its traditional definition
exp(y*ln(x)); then I would change my vote to YES. I would also vote YES if
rootn(x,n) and powr(x,m,n) were required to complement pown(x,n).
On a speparate topic, if there was enough interest in P1788 to require sign,
ceil, floor, nint, and trunc in a separate follow-up motion, I would vote
YES for that, too.
Sincerely,
Nate Hayes