M0039.01 Introductory text PASSES
P1788,
Motion 0039.01 Introductory text PASSES with 0 No, 43 Yes, of 52 total Voting Members. 35 votes are required.
The primary dissent was from Michel Hack:
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Motion 39.01 YES
> Date: December 19, 2012 5:54:26 PM CST
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
Happy Holidays to one and all!
George Corliss, P1788 Voting Tabulator
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx