Re: Motion P1788/M0033.01 Number Format
Alan, Michel, P1788
On 6 Jun 2012, at 10:45, Michel Hack wrote:
(Alan Eliasen wrote:)
>> In order for me to vote YES on this motion, it would need to be
>> amended to allow a constraint on the *precision* as well as the rounding
>> direction, and remove text about "closest" value.
>
> I think an implementation that passes a precision constraint as an
> additional parameter in functions where this matters would be conforming.
I agree.
>> ... If the exact precision constraints are not
>> meetable for any reason, then the implementation should be allowed to
>> return a less "sharp" value that still preserves containment.
>
> This gets into the tightest/accurate/valid qualification debate (see
> Vienna proposal), which has not yet come up in a Motion.
I would agree with both Alan's comment and Michel's reply.
John Pryce