Re: As simple as it is now, I am still against motion 24.03...
On 06/09/2011 08:39 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 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.
<delurk>
Seems to me the list of functions provided in interval form needs to be
either exhaustive or extendible.
Consider any of the functions this group has rejected from being
required for inclusion, or any we haven't thought of. If I need them,
am I stuck implementing them with interval arithmetic on the
sub-expressions, giving me a wider-than-necessary result, or does the
platform provide a mechanism through which an analyst can extend it?
--Joel
</delurk>