Re: Siegfried's recent paper, and other matters

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me a more scientific approach would be to vote on a document 
like the one described below, as well as its accompanying C++ reference 
implementation. Otherwise IMHO its a bit of a pig-in-the-poke.
Nate

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Alexandre Goldsztejn" <alexandre.goldsztejn@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Siegfried's recent paper, and other matters


> Alexandre
>
> This seems a good idea to me. Will you propose this motion? I was only 
> expressing my personal opinion in my points 1 to 4.
>
> John Pryce
>
> On 3 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Alexandre Goldsztejn wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > > Ok. I will write the text for this appendix. Svetoslav has agreed to 
> > > help.
> > > If anyone else wishes to contribute, please contact one of us offline.
> > >
> > > I will also make a commitment to providing a C++ modal interval 
> > > reference
> > > implementation to accompany the appendix.
> >
> > Before Nate and others spend so much time writing these documents and
> > implementations, shouldn't someone propose a motion to include Kaucher
> > intervals in an appendix of the standard?
> >
> > Personally, I don't agree with points 3 (the standard should be as
> > much as possible compatible with Kaucher intervals) and 4 (an appendix
> > of the standard should be included in the standard) of John about
> > Kaucher intervals, a motion could be the opportunity to discuss them.