Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: That other flavour...



I say: Ideally, there should no implementation constraints what so ever except for one: satisfying the containment constraint.

Cheers,

Bill


On 9/20/13 5:15 PM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:39:18 -0400
To: stds-1788                    <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Nate Hayes                          <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michel Hack                                <mhack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: That other flavour...

. . .

Perhaps we need a separate chapter on non-interval operations, or move
clause 13.7 to the end of Chapter 1.  We also had Motion M0024.03 which
required availability of explicit directed-rounding for the basic point
arithmetic operations (which comes for free with 754-2008, but could be
an additional requirement for non-754 implementations).  This belongs in
the same place.

Michel.

---Sent: 2013-09-20 19:39:43 UTC
	I doubt it was Michel's intention to raise this issue but I will:
	Can we (or should we) restrict implementations to 754-2008?  Given
	its wide acceptance throughout the world, it would not restrict our
	customers much.  (Or would it?)  And, an underlying arithmetic which
	is both good & well defined would make the rest of our task much
	easier.  (There are specific implementations of intervals already
	written in 754 & it would allow us to write new features into 1788
	as proof of concept.)

	What say you folks?

	Just curious...

					Dan