Motion 39.01 YES
I vote YES on the text of Clauses 1.1 through 1.6.
I do have minor issues. It is possible to interpret the text in a
satisfactory manner (hence my YES vote), but the text could perhaps
be improved.
1.1: I had already made a suggestion with regard to the mention
of IEEE 754 types. John replaced the really objectionable
text with the already-agreed-to text of 2008, which is ok,
as it can be interpreted in a way that does not require the
IEEE types. My suggestion was unambiguous:
...and at least one fully-specified numeric type
such as an IEEE-754/2008 floating-point type.
1.4: Exclusions ...except for interval types derived from IEEE 754
Ambiguous again. My generous interpretation is that SOME aspects
of (Level 3) bit patterns would be specified (but vacuously, as
they would be the 754 specifications) -- but it could be interpreted
as saying that the complete Level 2/3/4 representation of intervals
based on 754-types would be specified, e.g. [lb, ub] as consecutive
754-types, and not, say, [-lb, ub]. I would vote NO if the latter
was the intention. (Note that this would also have required a full
specification of decoration encoding -- which we REALLY don't want.)
My suggestion is simply to drop the 'except for...' part.
Michel.
---Sent: 2012-12-20 00:17:43 UTC