Re: possible decision on interchange representation
Michel, P-1788,
On 06/20/2014 03:44 PM, Michel Hack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:28:07 -0500, Baker Kearfott wrote:
Let's see what Dima and Michel come up with, and go from there.
I think I want input from a wide range of individuals, which is why
I'm not just talking to the small group who worked out the current
definition of interval interchange formats (sections 14.4 and C6.2).
OK; that seems reasonable.
.
.
.
So what can we do about this?
.
.
.
I also note that 14.4 restricts itself to 754-conforming implementations.
So I think the solution is to leave "Level 4" issues *entirely* to the
IEEE 754-2008 standard, with the exception of decorations (because the
754 standard explicitly excludes specification of integer formats).
.
.
.
For decorations, I suggest the following small-integer encoding:
ill 0
trv 4
def 8
dac 12
com 16
with a remark "This encoding permits future refinement without
disturbing the natural propagation order of the decorations,
and fits within the range of a C signed CHAR, namely 0..127."
That seems reasonable to me, but we need to hear from the group.
I will now try to come up with actual text replacement for sections 14.4
and C6.2 --
Thank you; please do.
Can you use access to the SVN repository?
.
.
.
Sincerely,
Baker
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph 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
---------------------------------------------------------------