Mid-rad interchange only motion...

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:04:03 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  P1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Will someone make a formal motion? Re: mid-rad, inf-sup, a caution...
> 
> P-1788:
> 
> Would someone care to make a motion along the following lines?
> 
> "Conversion between midpoint-radius text format and standardized
> inf-sup numbers and conversion between standardized inf-sup
> numbers and midpoint-radius text formats will be standardized.
> Otherwise, the standard will be silent concerning midpoint-radius
> representations and midpoint-radius arithmetic."
> 
> I think we should have such a motion now while the discussion is
> fresh in peoples' minds, and such a motion would supply needed
> guidance.  Whomever (if anyone) moves it should feel free to
> alter it in any way, including removing "not"  (i.e. affirming
> standardization of mid-rad), referring to the Vienna proposal,
> etc.
> 
> Baker
> 

	Baker,

	I will so move & offer some friendly amendments.

	It should be made clear that the conversions to be
	standardized on preserve inclusion & round outwardly to
	the nearest representable interval in the target type.

	And, I believe we should also account for mid-rad text
	I/O forms.  Although I would be happy if that were
	postponed until a more general I/O motion.

	I will also accept any other friendly amendments along
	these lines.


				Dan


	P.S. - Question: Should it be made clear that we are not
	going to standardize arithmetic in mid-rad form?  It has
	been mentioned in this thread that mid-rad applications
	often take the form of a mid-only calculation followed
	by a rad-only calculation (which, I suppose, depends
	on the mid calculation).  These sound like ordinary
	floating-point (albeit with directed rounding) & don't
	seems to be too concerned with strict inclusion, at
	least in the second order sense.  Do I understand that
	correctly?