Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Expression evaluation [was Re: I vote NO ...]

John Pryce wrote:

Nick

On 18 May 2011, at 11:38, N.M. Maclaren wrote:

I am sorry, but that's not going to work.  The reasons were raised
(mainly by outsiders) in the discussion of IEEE 754, but were swept
under the carpet.


What are you telling us?
- That Motion 24 is useless?
- That anything we put in an interval standard to influence language
standards is useless?

Or are you reminding us that, whatever good ideas we put in an interval
standard, there is no alternative to the hard graft of joining a language
standards group and working to influence it from the inside?




I *think* all Nick is saying is that IEEE 1788 should not attempt to specify
any critical aspect of the implementation is a feature requirement or extention of a programming language, i.e., he appeared to be responding to: 

John Pryce wrote:

We could add to it that P1788
compliant language implementations SHOULD include operations with an
explicit rounding direction.
That statement implies the burden of conforming implementation would fall largely on the LANGUAGE, as opposed to a system library, etc. 

Of course, Nick feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

Nate