Re: Motion: Number format (Motion 33?)
On 2012-04-12 07:18:01 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> Thank you for this. I think if it passes it will clarify discussion
> of Level 2 matters very much. At first reading I see nothing in the
> content that I disagree with but can I suggest some amendments to
> wording?
OK, I'll do that later today.
> (4a) IMO the idea (was it Dmitry's?) of a "number format F
> compatible with an interval type T" is very sensible. I feel it
> should be definitely specified by the motion rather than left as
> "...if need be".
It was my idea, but Dmitry said it wasn't necessary for the midpoint.
See:
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dmitry Nadezhin <dmitry.nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: vincent@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M0032.01:MidpointMeaning -- discussion period begins
So, this is defined in the motion, but this idea may be dropped
if it is not used.
> Requiring each type to have a compatible format would clarify the
> cost of defining some exotic types.
I'm not sure that it would solve problems (e.g. the condition I gave
is not sufficient for the conterexample).
--
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)