Re: An additional thought Re: Some thoughts on Motion 19 (still under vote)
Arnold, P-1788,
Thank you. That appears to be a constructive comment that the proposers may
wish to take into account in a revision, should people agree with your
assessment of the motion and the motion as it stands thus fail.
Baker
On 9/16/2010 05:48, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
.
.
.
The least amendment that must be made to Motion 19 to permit it being called a compromise (rather than a slap in the face of an important
part of the user community) is to _require_ that at least one explicit
idatatype is supported.
This would not harm any of the other functionality (such as midrad or
multiple precision support) the committee might want to burden itself
with, through accepting the otherwise unchanged motion.
Arnold Neumaier
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------