Re: Motion P1788/M0045.02:ExactDotProductRevision -- revised text
On 2013-07-05 10:06:12 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> If there is a danger of clashes such as Vincent suggests, just name
> the 1788 ones differently! The underlying 754 system may call it
> dot(), the new one can be dot1788(), etc.
The name doesn't matter. Having two different functions provided by
two different standard for the same operation is a bad thing.
Otherwise, what's the point of having standards?
What would be the recommendation for the programmer? Use the
754-version dot(), which would be correctly rounded on most
implementations? Use the 1788-version dot1788(), which would be
guaranteed to be correctly rounded when available, but which
would be less often available or would require a dependency?
What if third standard decides to do the same thing, defines
its own dot product for the floating-point formats?
--
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)