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

[Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ned,

   I find the hexadecimal representation

important because it lets you know exactly,

bit by bit, the number you are talking about.

   This may not matter much for people working

at a high level, but for people concerned with

the least significant bits this representation

is quite handy.

  It is not hard to implement either (just use sprintf

with %a)

   walter.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Ned Nedialkov <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Vincent and all,

> On Jul 29, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2015-07-27 09:28:32 -0400, Ned Nedialkov wrote:
>> I have attached a draft of the basic standard. IEEE did not like
>> “Basic Standard” so it is "(Simplified)”. I would like to invite
>> everybody for comments and suggestions.
>
> There's something really strange: this is a standard based on a binary
> format (binary64), but concerning the literals, the hexadecimal form,
> which is probably the best way to be able to represent any binary64
> number (compact and allowing fast conversion), is not required!

I did not feel the hex representation is used much in interval
software. Surely, I can be wrong and I can put
the hex representation back.
Any views on to have it or not to have it?

Regards,
Ned