Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: NO -> YES

[Ian McIntosh <ianm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks. Before I voted I checked the web site to be sure I had the latest version, using the URL from Baker's 07/06/2011 08:03 AM note

     A copy of motion 24.03 is found at
    http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/private/Motions/Motion24.03.pdf

As you say, it is different than the version I copied and pasted from a few hours ago.  My browser history shows that earlier today I accessed what looks to me like the same URL
	http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/private/Motions/Motion24.03.pdf .
Assuming it wasn't just updated, my browser must have reused a cached older version?  Was version 2 ever posted using this URL?  Very strange.  Do you suppose Customs held the new version up at the border?   8<)

I appreciate the changes.  Thank you Ulrich.

In favour:  I agree that with some syntax (likely as functions in most languages) these operations would be useful for some (but not all) interval arithmetic implementers and math library implementers.  The motion no longer implies hardware changes or language syntax changes.

Against:  I still believe these operations belong more in 754 than 1788 (along with corresponding operations using the other 754 rounding modes).  I still believe that Interval Arithmetic users should use IA operations, then extract the upper and/or lower bounds, instead of using these.  But with the changes . . .

I change my vote to YES but still with some doubts.

- Ian McIntosh          IBM Canada Lab         Compiler Back End Support and Development

Dan Zuras Intervals ---07/07/2011 08:44:58 PM---> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

From:	Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Ian McIntosh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Cc:	stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	07/07/2011 08:44 PM
Subject:	Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: NO
Sent by:	ben@xxxxxxxxx

---

> To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Ian McIntosh <ianm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:19:24 -0400
> 
> 
> I vote NO on Motion 24 RoundedOperations.
> 
> I vote no because the wording
> 
>    . . .
> 
> If the wording quoted above were replaced with just
> 
>    Each of the 8 operations shall be available as a single operation or=
> 
>    function, specifying the arithmetic operations and the rounding mode=
> .
> 
> I might vote yes, but I would wonder whether a requirement involving on=
> ly
> floating point operations on floating point values, not interval operat=
> ions
> on interval values, should be part of 1788 instead of a future 754
> revision.  It would be useful to floating point users and to interval
> implementers, but shouldn't interval users avoid such usage?
> 
> - Ian McIntosh   IBM Canada Lab         Compiler Back End Suppor=
> t
> and Development
> 

		 Ian,

		 You are working from an earlier version of the motion as
		 I was when I voted.  If you look at 24.03 you will find
		 it is much as you have asked.  I still voted no but you
		 might want to reconsider.

		 Just FYI,

		 		 		 		 Dan