Re: Motion P1788/M0036.03: YES
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Besides this motion, P1788 seems to me not to be on track for a progressive
> standard, but rather a track that will make Kaucher/modal arithmetic
> non-conforming. To include Kaucher/modal intervals at a later time would
> then require invalidating the future 1788 standard, which is unlikely. So
> the precedent would be set for competing standards, and intervallers in both
> industry and academia will be developing incompatible interval applications.
> Some people have suggested they fear running out of time if considering the
> possibility of this motion, but in my view the aforementioned outcome would
> be a much bigger failure.
I'm not a voting member of this group, but I'm coming out of lurk-mode
to weigh in on this.
It may be that for time constraints, P1788 needs to go to
standardization with only set-based intervals defined. That would be
alright if there were room for a revision that included other flavors.
(Consider the large revision to 754 that was needed to accommodate
decimal -- but if we need to interface to Martian computers that use
base-17, a future revision would be relatively simple.)
I think Nate has the right of this issue: Even if only one flavor is
defined this time around, the concept needs to be in the standard.
--Joel Salomon