Re: Motion 31 draft text V04.4, extra notes
On 2012-04-05 10:26:15 -0500, Nate Hayes wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>In my opinion, P1788 should consider restricting Level 1 to bounded
> >>intervals and introduce "overflown" intervals at Level 2. After the
> >>recent
> >>discussion on midpoint, it seems the committee is already leaning in this
> >>direction anyways. It also means the formulas in Motion 13 which are very
> >>simple and efficient could still be used for implementations.
> >
> >I don't see the discussion on midpoint changing anything about such
> >intervals.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.
>
> My observation is that Midpoint is not defined at Level 1 for unbounded
> intervals.
I agree. But there will be no "overflown" intervals at Level 2.
AFAIK, the Level 2 choice for the midpoint on unbounded intervals
has been done for practical reasons, not because of some notion
of "overflown" intervals (if this is what you meant).
--
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 / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)