Re: Discussion period extended? Re: Motion 11.01 Basic Reverse Interval Operations
P1788
I think the reverse operations cannot be calculated by the other
functions or operations, hence I think they should be incuded
I further think that we should not throw away useful information.
Therefore I prefer two intervals as return set of a division by an
interval containing 0. the language designer or the user can then exploit
the full information.
I admit that we end up with infinitely many inervals for the reverse sine,
e.g. perhaps these problems can be solved with an appropriate decoration.
Marco or someone else will have to specify this, when we come to that motion
regards
Juergen
>> From: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "stds-1788@xxxxxxxx" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
>> CC: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: Discussion period extended? Re: Motion 11.01 Basic Reverse
>> Interval Operations
>> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:50:48 +0000
>>
>> I'd like to offer a mild argument AGAINST Motion 11.
>> I prefer a standard as simple as possible, but that
>> still provided intervals.
>>
>> I agree that reverse interval operations are useful;
>> I have programmed and used them, too.
>>
>> If this were a programming language standard, I would
>> accept reverse interval operations.
>>
>> However, P1788 is intended as primarily a hardware
>> (or hardware-like) standard. Vendors are more likely
>> to implement our standard if there is a clear market.
>> The fewer features we write into the standard, the
>> easier it is to implement.
>>
>> If we add all the features any of us would like to see,
>> we may end up with such a feature-rich standard that it
>> is to heavy to implement and too hard to document a
>> compelling market need for every feature. The outcome
>> I fear is an un-implemented standard.
>>
>> Any market survey people or hardware implementation
>> people are welcome to make the opposite case.
>>
>> Dr. George F. Corliss
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Let me offer an opinion of George's approach.
> I don't really know whether it is in support
> of it or not.
>
> Offering a low level standard which is easy
> to implement even on portable equipment like
> defibrillators is a good idea.
>
> Then the principle would be: Make the standard
> as simple as possible.
>
> But no simpler.
>
> The question then becomes: Are the reverse forms
> proposed in Motion 11 constructable out of other
> things we are defining or must they be considered
> primitives on their own?
>
> If the answer is: They are NOT constructable from
> other things we must then ask: What more needs to
> be added to accomplish that?
>
> If the answer is: They ARE constructable we must
> ask: Can they be simplified & presented in an
> informative annex? So that everyone implements
> them in the same way or, at least, to the same
> effect?
>
> Actually, we should ask if they can be simplified
> either way. Simpler forms are likely easier to
> construct.
>
> So, you guys are the experts. Am I supporting
> George or not?
>
> Inquiring minds... :-) - Dan
>