| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
John Pryce wrote:
Nate On 26 Oct 2010, at 01:08, Nate Hayes wrote:Q3. I see no good reason why the different kinds of NaI that might be found useful in applications should be in 1-1 correspondence with thedifferent decoration values used in whatever exception handling scheme wefinalise. Justification, anyone?I don't fully understand the question.In Dan's experience, various NaN-like values were proposed, arising from user needs: "missing data", "finite real of unknown value", "arbitrarily large value", etc. though none made it to the final standard. In the present situation, the different "NaIs" arise not from user needs but from choices internal to P1788: e.g. if we go with Arnold's scheme there'll be 5 of them.
Right.I'm working with Arnold on a motion to clarify these issues, as well as to formalize the 5-state scheme as a "consolidation" of the other P1788 decorations (i.e., "domain" tetrit, "defined and continuous" bit, and "bounded").
This should greatly simplify decorations while at the same time providing a well-specified set of NaIs that I would suggest be required for IEEE 1788 conformance.
I'm planning to wait until Motion 22 and its Amendment has finished voting before submitting the new motion, however, since it will incorporate definitions and concepts from Motion 22 (and its proposed amendment).
Nate Hayes