Re: Please vote against Motion P1788/0019.01: Explicit/Implicit idatatypes

[Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Svetoslav (and P-1788),

I don't think anyone has said anything about prohibiting mid-rad --
the issue seems to be whether or not to require it or whether or
not to put language into the standard that allows someone with only
a mid-rad implementation to claim it is standard-conforming.
(That is, no-one is suggesting that existence of a mid-rad implementation
in a package or hardware causes that package or hardware to not be standard conforming.)

Baker

On 9/10/2010 00:53, Svetoslav Markov wrote:
> Dear Arnold,
.
.
.

> > I believe there is currently no demand for anything but infsup
> > interval arithmetic. The far future can be addressed by a subsequent
> > version of the standard, ...
>
> If the current standard prohibits mid-rad-only then better this is
> metioned explicitely in the name of the standard:
> "IEEE Standard for Inf-sup Interval Arithmetic".
>
> Otherwise it will be not good for the reputation of the standard.
>
> Regards,
>
> Svetoslav



--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------