Dear colleagues,
I would suggest we could provide a pseudo-language binding, in that we
could define, for each operation/function, the input(s) and output(s),
and how the operation/function should behave. That would be part of the
standard and specific language bindings would be written on top of that,
together with the language (Fortran, C, Ada, other) standards committee.
Regards,
Rudnei
2010/3/16 "Prof.Dr. Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg"
<wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
I completely agree with Dan's plea for languge bindings.
I think we can formulate rules not depending on a particular language.
"The basic operations are provide as functions or operators .."
"An expression shall be executed as it is written..."
In my view P1788 is not a pure hardware standard, although I would
like to have all functionality in hardware. In the mean time there
will be software implementations conforming to the standards and
disseminating the use of intervals.
Hopefully,
Juergen
John Pryce schrieb:
P1788, Dan
On 15 Mar 2010, at 16:34, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
That's a good question.
Looking at IEEE 754-1985, one sees that it was a decade
or more
after the hardware standard was in use before there were
language
bindings. Can including language bindings help the process?
Emphatically yes.
It was more than 2 decades that 754 lived without
standard language bindings & during that time a lot
of compilers found 'imaginative' ways to interpret
the meaning of the seemingly most obvious things,
like '+' & '*'.
Some of those interpretations were just 'different'.
Some were flat out wrong...
Dan has long argued this point, and I am persuaded by him. We
need language bindings. This is what the P1788 Subgroup
"Expression Rearrangement" is really about. Can it wake from
sleep and address this please?
This is tricky, because by the nature of language bindings I
think we, acting alone, can't create normative text on this. Or
would be unwise to do so. That can only be done in collaboration
with a relevant language standardization committee. If my health
is spared to me I intend to join the Fortran committee when our
work is near completion.
But if we produce a P1788 clause of _recommendations_ on this
topic, they will carry a lot of weight. We should then be ready
to revise it a year or two or three later in the light of
experience in language committees.
Regards
John