Re: As simple as it is now, I am still against motion 24.03...
Vincent Lefèvre wrote:
> On 2011-06-09 03:52:28 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> > So I will vote against motion 24.03 & urge others to do so
> > as well.
>
> I agree with Dan. Motions should not be on how interval arithmetic
> should be implemented (internally), but on what it provides (the
> behavior). Implementation details could be part of the rationale,
> but not the subject of a motion.
I don't see this motion as saying ANYTHING about implementation -- nor
is there any mention anymore of the form of support for arithmetic or
conversion operations with explicit directed rounding.
In an Interval Arithmetic context I would use the environment's IA
operations for certain things, but would ALSO use directed-rounding point
operations on others where I understand issues of local monotonicity, of
points of discontinuity which I might avoid explcitly, and of evenness
considerations. The latter is the reason why I find rounding towards zero
(RTZ) useful too; in fact, I'd like RAZ (round away from zero) too (and I
have that option for DFP on IBM's P and Z series).
Remember that my original suggestion was to require all supported rounding
modes to be available as explicit rounding modes!
Michel.
---Sent: 2011-06-10 07:06:39 UTC