Re: Arguments for supporting Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad
sorry I could not resist:
> Indeed. That's why I am not advocating in favour only of mid-rad arithmetic,
> but it should have some form of supporting both standard and mid-rad reps.
^^^^^^^^
do you mean "standard" already means "inf-sup"? We are discussing a new
standard. If things are already decided, there is no point in discussing...
I strongly advise to include mid-rad in P1788, at least to clarify how to
correctly represent a mid-rad interval, and how to correctly compute with it.
Paul Zimmermann