Re: Any action? Re: Prospective Motion --, Kaucher Arithmetic
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> P-1788,
>
> Does someone wish to take action on this motion?
> I certainly did not mean to quash it, but I hoped
> to have its underlying intent be clear and
> precise.
I request that the motion be complete. That means sensible operation
sequences have to be defined even if not especially useful in some
cases. This request implies that there be no omissions that are TBD
later.
One such operation sequence is the re-conversion from midpoint+radius
to lower+upper, thus allowing a full circuit as may be necessary to
avoid duplicating all of the standard functions, especially I/O.
Another such sequence is the M+R to L+U to M+R full cycle. Both
complete cycles must specify the effect upon unbounded (so-called
"infinite" endpoints) and overflow endpoints at the completion of such
a full conversion cycle.
Will we need a full set of M+R constructors? Or is the M+R
representation expected to be merely a calculation convenience as
opposed to a full fledged internal format?
Lee Winter
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America (NDY)