Re: As simple as it is now, I am still against motion 24.03...
Vincent, P-1788,
On 06/14/2011 10:01 AM, Michel Hack wrote:
Vincent wrote:
.
.
.
Actually, 754-2008 shows the way, but I have yet to see support, or even
talk about support, of it: application of static rounding directives to
"blocks" that could be as small as a single expression, e.g. in C:
{ #pragma RoundTowardsPositive x = a + b; }
But that's 754 -- and we were not going to tie 1788 to 754. Yet 1788 is
the context in which this issue is most relevant.
The only formal decision not to tie to 754 was Motion 4, which was
withdrawn. (Otherwise, please correct me.) Thus, it is still
open how (or if) we will tie 1788 to 754.
My own opinion: The more of 754 we can use, and the less additional
or conflicting baggage at the 754 level we load into
1788, the easier 1788 will go through the upper levels
of approval, and the more likely any eventual 1788 will
be widely adopted.
Again, this is my personal assessment, which may or may
not be correct. Also, this "assessment" may be a bit
too generally stated. (I'm not sure right now how
it may be relevant to Motion 24.)
Baker
Michel.
---Sent: 2011-06-14 15:23:46 UTC
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------