Re: P1788: Motion 45 PASSES - amendment
Ian,
I'm not sure I understand the procedural implications or
practical consequence of what you are saying here. We are doing
our best to both follow the procedures dictated in our P&P in a bias-free
way and complete the work in a timely manner.
Baker
On 08/07/2013 11:03 AM, Ian McIntosh wrote:
My understanding of the intent of Motion 45 was that "recommended"
meant "recommended but not required", where Motion 9 required it.
John Pryce: ======
John Pryce: Motion
John Pryce: ======
John Pryce: 1. The status of Exact Dot Product EDP and Complete
Arithmetic CA be changed from required to recommended.
John Pryce:
John Pryce: 2. The current text on EDP and CA (11.11.11 in the
current draft) be moved to Level 3 with minor revisions and replaced
at Level 2 by the following text:
John Pryce: . . .
Normally an amendment to a motion must be consistent with the intent
of the original motion, and a separate motion is needed for any change
inconsistent with the original meaning. Isn't that the case here?
- Ian McIntosh IBM Canada Lab Compiler Back End
Support and Development
Inactive hide details for John Pryce ---08/03/2013 11:15:28 AM---P1788
According to our procedures, NO votes on actual standardJohn Pryce
---08/03/2013 11:15:28 AM---P1788 According to our procedures, NO
votes on actual standard text constitute a motion to amend. I
From:
John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Ian McIntosh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date:
08/03/2013 11:15 AM
Subject:
Re: P1788: Motion 45 PASSES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1788
According to our procedures, NO votes on actual standard text
constitute a motion to amend. I believe two such motions arise from
Motion 45:
(a) on the status of Complete Arithmetic;
(b) on the sign of an exact zero result, and related matters.
The intent of the motion for (a) is quite clear. I propose this
wording for it:
======
Motion
======
In last sentence of the text for Reduction Operations as approved by
Motion 45, namely
> It is recommended that these operations be based on an
implementation of Complete Arithmetic as specified in §13.7.
the word "recommended" should be changed to "required".
======
If anyone is unhappy with this wording, please say so. Otherwise, I
will submit (on behalf of the Committee) it in a few days time.
I hope to treat (b), which arises from points made by Michel Hack and
Vincent Lefevre, as a friendly amendment, as soon as one or two
outstanding disagreements are ironed out.
John Pryce
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (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
---------------------------------------------------------------