Re: [P-1788]: Summary of our work plan (Items to be considered in the near future)
On 2013-05-14 22:13:36 +0200, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> 11.11.1 interval literals are language dependent syntactic sugar
I think so. And it is still ambiguous w.r.t. the locales, such as
the Turkish ones, where there are the following letter
- 'I' U+0049 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I
- 'i' U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I
- 'İ' U+0130 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE
- 'ı' U+0131 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I
and where toupper('i') is 'İ', not 'I'. See the past discussions.
And about 11.11.11, "Complete arithmetic, dot product function"
(for 754-conforming types): I completely disagree on it being a
requirement. IMHO, it should not even be normative. P1788 is a
standard on interval arithmetic. I don't see the point of having a
single paragraph on a different arithmetic (which, BTW, would rather
belong to IEEE 754). If the only goal is to have an interval version
of the dot product, then the dot product could be specified like the
other operations, without enforcing an algorithm. Let's recall that
Motion 9 (which led to this clause) passed with very few votes, and
it even passed thanks to some "NO" votes.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)