Re: [Fwd: Re: Neumaier-Pryce proposed decoration system (v03.2)]
On 2011-06-21 14:06:21 -0500, Nate Hayes wrote:
> My only thought was: I'm not really aware of a practical interval
> algorithm that requires making the distinction between infinity and
> overflow at Level 2.
OK, I'm not convinced either of the necessity of this distinction.
> So the result could just as well be ([1,+Overflow],D1) at Level 2, then;
I would see it as ([1,+inf],D1) because I don't see what sense you
can give to +Overflow.
> and perhaps this could lead to a simpler standard (avoiding the
> complexities mentioned by Dan Zuras). That's all.
Yes. More generally I think that to be accepted as normative,
any feature should be used by at least a real-world application
(otherwise it should not be more than informational).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)