Re: mid-rad, inf-sup, a caution...

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:58:28 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Wolff_von_Gudenberg?=
>     <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: mid-rad, inf-sup, a caution...
> 
> Arnold,
> 
> Thank you for your input and clarification.  Are there
> additional comments concerning this?  Should mid-rad be
> standardized as an optional type?
> 
> Baker
> 

	Hossam's analogy was to binary versus decimal in 754.

	And in 754, a conforming implementation is permitted
	to support either binary or decimal or both.

	The analogy for us would be that a conforming 1788
	implementation would be permitted to support either
	mid-rad or inf-sup or both.

	That is, mid-rad is as optional as inf-sup but one or
	the other is required.

	Is that what you mean?

	Or do you mean to suggest we should have an inf-sup
	standard that specifies conversions to & from mid-rad?

	Just so I understand it all...


				Dan