RE: Motion 46: finalise interval literals, amendments
This is true for measurement results, but what if you have 1.234 as a coefficient in a formula, then John's suggestion makes sense
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ned Nedialkov
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg
Cc: John Pryce; stds-1788; Ralph Baker Kearfott
Subject: Re: Motion 46: finalise interval literals, amendments
On 2013-07-02, at 11:12 PM, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
> just another option would be to use different constructors
> nums2interval(x) --> [x,x]
> nums2intervalwide(x) --> [x-ulp,x+ulp]
Really, why do we need to add an ulp around an interval? If my device tells me I measured 1.234 and the device has accuracy 5%, I will construct my interval.
Regards,
Ned