Re: Why (IMO) you should vote Yes to Motion 14.02

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Corliss wrote:
> My extrapolation of Nate's argument below sounds just a little bit like
> Bill Walster's, "Containment is REQUIRED; all else are quality of
> implementation issues."  Or simply, "Thou shalt not lie."
>
> A standard requiring (almost) only containment would allow InfSup and
> MidRad, its exception-handling could be quite simple (but not trivial),
> and there probably would be (shudder) NO common underlying levels or
> theory.
>
> Would that be any "standard" at all?

I don't agree there would be no underlying levels or theory, but otherwise,
yes, I think what you describe actually sounds pretty good! :-)

On the counter to your argument, though, I don't expect anyone will stop
using fast matrix multiply in Intlab just because 1788 (apparently) is going
to decree the software is non-conforming. However, the question lingering in
my mind then becomes: has P1788 really accomplished anything relevant except
creating a bunch of rules no one likes to follow?

Nate