Motion P1788/M0050:EDP-Without-CA: YES
Here are my considerations:
To the agument of Richard Fateman:
I think that translation from end-point to mid-rad
form and vice versa will benefit from the EDP. In particular,
if one of the two forms is a number (degenerate interval),
obtained as result of some computations, the other form
may be necessarily nondegenerate interval. The latter will
be sharper if an EDP is available.
To the agument of Vincent Lefevre:
If EDP is available then the operations exact sum or an exact product
of two numbers are readily available as special cases of EDP.
From the discussions on the hardware implementation of
EDP I see that there exist several methods to implement EDP,
thus requiring EDP in the interval arithmetic standard may be considered as
a challenging requirement.
So my vote on Motion 50 is yes.
Best regards,
Svetoslav
Date sent: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:25:59 -0700
From: Richard Fateman <fateman@xxxxxxxxx>
Regardless of the possible arguments for or against EDP
as a computational tool, adding a functionality which has
neither interval inputs nor interval outputs and appears to require
a data object (extended accumulator) not otherwise present in
the standard, seems gratuitous in the context of an interval standard.
Date sent: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:02:57 +0200
From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
I also disagree on requiring a complex operation such as EDP while
simpler exact operations such as an exact sum or an exact product
of two numbers aren't even mentioned. Something like that is seen
nowhere in other standards. EDP and other exact operations have
their place only in their own standard.
--