Re: Draft: P1788.1 Standard for Interval Arithmetic (Simplified)

[Ian McIntosh <ianm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Would "Minimal Standard" be an appropriate name?

- Ian McIntosh          IBM Canada Lab         Compiler Back End Support and Development


Ned Nedialkov ---2015-07-28 08:34:43 AM---Hi Oliver,  > On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Oliver Heimlich <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Ned Nedialkov <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ian McIntosh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 2015-07-28 08:34 AM
Subject: Re: Draft: P1788.1 Standard for Interval Arithmetic  (Simplified)

---

Hi Oliver, 

> On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Oliver Heimlich <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>  
> I still have to look more deeply into the draft. I would recommend to not call it “simplified”, because that sounds like the document contains the same content and scope as IEEE Std 1788-2015 and only the wording has been simplified.  Having a similar name “1788.1” adds to this confusion.
> 
> How about calling it “reduced standard” or “essential standard”? Maybe a native speaker could recommend a suitable name.

IEEE’s point was there is no such a thing as “Basic Standard…” , perhaps “Essential” in parenthesis? 
> 
> I do not understand the last paragraph: “NOTE—If the following functions … are implemented as specified in the full IEEE Std 1788-2015 standard, this standard becomes a flavor of the full standard.”
> 
> - Aren't the hexadecimal, rational and uncertain form literals required in all flavors according to 9.7 of the full standard?
> - You could add the reduction operations to the list of “not required” function.
> - Also you would probably want to discard the word “standard” following the term “IEEE Std 1788-2015”.

Will take the above into account. 

Regards,
Ned

> 
> Best regards
> Oliver Heimlich