Fwd: Motion P1788/MOO46.02:IntervalLiteratals -- Yes
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Motion P1788/MOO46.02:IntervalLiteratals -- voting period
begins
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:39:20 -0300
From: Rudnei Cunha <rudnei.cunha@xxxxxxxxx>
To: R. Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Ralph,
I vote YES on motions 43, 45 and 46.
Cheers,
Rudnei
2013/7/13 Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
P-1788:
The voting period for Motion 46 herewith
begins. Voting will continue until after Saturday, August 3, 2013.
Voting on this motion will proceed according to the rules for
position papers (quorum and simple majority).
Comment can continue during voting, but the motion
cannot be changed during voting.
I have forwarded the email from our overall technical editor
with the motion as updated on July 13, 2013. (The motion
consists of a 2-line statement, a clarification, and a file
in PDF. The email also contains some explanation of plans
for a two-tiered standard, and how it might impact this motion.)
Webmaster: Please update the web page as follows:
1. Please post the updated motion and its clarification.
2. Please post the corresponding PDF document.
3. Please update the motion's status.
Acting secretary: Please record the transaction in the minutes.
NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE PDF CONTAINS PAGES FROM THE DRAFT TEXT,
THIS MOTION IS ON CONTENT, RATHER THAN ACTUAL WORDING.
IF THIS MOTION PASSES, WE WILL HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE ON THE
ACTUAL WORDING.
The motion will appear in the private area of the IEEE P-1788 site:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/private/Motions/AllMotions.html
As usual, please contact me if you need the password to the private
area.
Best regards,
Baker (acting as chair, P-1788)
==================================================================
==================================================================
On 07/13/2013 03:54 AM, John Pryce wrote:
Baker, P1788
Chair, are we ready to vote?
I apologise for having written about this motion "Here is text
to vote on", or similar. Well, yes, but motion 46 is not about
the actual wording but about the content. (BTW that means it
passes on simple majority, not two thirds.)
This is important because the motion is in danger of being
endlessly bogged down in the debate
"Do we want a small, basic standard or a larger, fuller-featured
standard?"
As it relates to motion 46:
- Do we want rational number literals such as "22/7"? NO!! (e.g.
Jürgen) YES!! (e.g. Dmitry)
- Do we want other number literals to follow (a) the syntax of
the host language,
or (b) a minimal syntax whose productions are common to all
widely used languages?
[I started with (b), which was criticised; changed to (a);
now there is pressure to go back to (b).]
- etc.
It seems clear we need both a "full" standard, and a "basic" one
that is a subset.
We have a willing candidate to be "Technical Editor for the
Basic Standard" (TEBS) and I hope we can shortly announce he has
accepted the chair's formal invitation. His role is to create
the basic subset and, I hope, a simplified document that
describes only that subset. The basic standard will be angled
toward ease of implementation.
That being so, I ask us to vote on motion 46 concentrating on
the principles. Please ignore issues of what details are in or
out of the subset: you will have your say on these when the TEBS
makes his proposals.
======
Motion 46, revision of 13 July 2013.
======
The syntax and semantics of interval literals shall be as
specified in the attached extract from Draft 7.3.
======
Clarification
======
- The TEBS will choose a subset to form the definition of
interval literals in the basic standard. ("Subset" means any
literal that conforms to the basic standard also conforms to the
full standard.)
- The main principles you are voting on, as I see it, are:
1. Interval literals (ILs) have a mathematical value. Converting
them to finite precision intervals is a separate operation.
2. ILs are what the Level 2 constructor text2interval(), of any
finite precision type, takes as input.
3. ILs have a close relation to interval I/O: it shall be possible
to write an internal interval to an IL, and read an IL to an
internal interval, preserving containment in either direction.
(Not directly covered by this motion, but relevant.)
4. Inf-sup form "[1.2,3.4]" and uncertain form "12.345?6" are both
a Good Thing.
- Whether number literals follow the host language syntax or a
simple language-independent syntax, is left to the TEBS to decide.
======
Notes
======
- In the new text I have added a definition of what "last place"
(an integer) and "unit in last place" (ulp) mean in this
context, since I learned they have more than one meaning and are
unfamiliar to some.
[Example. For the decimal strings 123 and 123. , as well as 0
and 0. , the last place is 0 and one ulp is 1. For .123 and
0.123 , as well as .000 and 0.000 , the last place is −3 and one
ulp is 0.001.]
- I hope to have corrected an error in the definition of
"exponent field" for uncertain form, which was inconsistent as
to whether the prefix character 'e' was included or not.
- This was the original version of the motion.
======
Motion
======
The syntax and semantics of interval literals shall be
- as specified in Draft 7.1 circulated as
20130402Level1and2textV7.1Sent.pdf;
- with the addition of the singleton interval form [x] which
is equivalent to [x,x].
The standard will not at this stage include a facility for
named constants such as pi to be included in the definition
of an interval literal.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(337) 482-5346 <tel:%28337%29%20482-5346> (fax)
(337) 482-5270 <tel:%28337%29%20482-5270> (work) (337) 993-1827
<tel:%28337%29%20993-1827> (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------