Motion 19.02 NO

["Svetoslav Markov" <smarkov@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My vote to motion 19.02  is "no".
 
  I would vote "yes" if either:
 
 a) the motion is modified so that an implementation 
that supports only an implicit type is also conforming

  b) the name of the interval arithmetic standard is 
modified accordingly.

Svetoslav Markov, IMI-BAS
 
  PS. Motion 19.02 makes a significant step towards the
recognition of the "mid-rad" implementations as auxiliary to
"inf-sup".  However, I think that "mid-rad only" arithmetic
should also be conforming. Let me recall  the  two main 
mathermatical arguments  against  "mid-rad only"  support:
 
  1.  infinite intervals are not representable in mid-rad, and
 
  2.  when the midpoint of a (real) interval is exactly in the middle
 between  two machine numbers, then mid-rad presentation is not unique.

  I do not find these arguments sufficiently serious.