Motion M0050:EDP-Without-CA
P1788
I'm a little surprised that a few people who voted No on Motion 47 have voted Yes on Motion 50, and I suggest that they may reconsider.
With respect to Prof Kulisch, I agree with the arguments of Richard Fateman and Vincent Lefevre copied below. Motion 45 gives our standard the *effect* of EDP rounded to the precision of any supported interval type, without mandating a specific *mechanism*. That's how it should be, in this standard. CA+EDP are great, and deserve their own standard, but do not fit into 1788.
John Pryce
=======================
On 2013 Sep 15, at 17:25, Richard Fateman wrote:
> This is motion 50 in the
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/private/Motions/AllMotions.html
>
> As I understand it ..
> A motion (47) to require both EDP and CA failed. 6 Yes, 30 No.
> This motion (50) requires EDP but recommends CA.
>
> I think that many of the arguments already presented in motion 47 are relevant
> even if CA is merely recommended. I repeat just one of them.
>
> 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.
On 2013 Sep 15, at 18:02, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I vote NO on Motion P1788/M0050:EDP-Without-CA.
>
> Same reason as what Richard Fateman said.
>
> 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.