RE: voting period begins, until Feb. 12: "natural interval extension": friendly amendment to M001.02
I vote Yes
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nathalie Revol
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 3:40 PM
To: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Nedialkov, Ned <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Nathalie Revol <Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: voting period begins, until Feb. 12: "natural interval extension": friendly amendment to M001.02
Dear Colleagues,
I was abroad the last days and I did not close the discussion period on January 26, sorry.
The discussion period is now closed and the voting period opens, for a 2-weeks period again, until February 12.
May I remind you of the first sentence of the scope of 1788.1 working group, as accepted by IEEE, and thus that cannot be modified.
"This standard is a subset of the (full) IEEE P1788 Standard for Interval Arithmetic and includes those operations that in the the editors' view are most commonly used."
In particular, this means that 1788.1 cannot contain anything that is not already in IEEE 1788-2015. It cannot mandate anything which is not mandatory in IEEE 1788-2015.
** Thus any vote that does not respect this rule will not be accounted for. **
Any proposal for the addition of a new flavour or the addition of any feature, must be done by a new working group.
Best regards
Nathalie
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 15:37, Nathalie Revol <Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> I am afraid I forgot to launch the discussion period before the Christmas break.
> I suggest a 2-weeks discussion period, as there seems to be no
> opposition to this amendment (seconded by Michel Hack). The discussion
> period starts now and ends Tuesday, January 26, when the voting period begins.
>
> Best wishes for a Happy New Year!
> Best regards
> Nathalie
>
>> On 20 Dec 2015, at 17:29, Nedialkov, Ned <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I would like to propose a friendly amendment to the existing motion
>> M001.02:
>> replace "natural interval extension" with "tightest interval extension".
>>
>>
>> RATIONALE.
>>
>> 1. We are all in agreement on the term "interval extension". What we
>> call in 1788 "natural interval extension" is the tightest such
>> extension. Then why not call the former exactly what it is, namely "tightest".
>> (This is simple, descriptive, and easy to explain to non-experts.)
>>
>> 2. If we accept such a change in P1788.1, there is no conflict with
>> the use of "natural interval extension" in IEEE 1788, which will be
>> fixed at some point in the future.
>>
>> 3. A small number of changes to 1788 would be needed.
>> This would involve changes on 4 pages where natural interval extension"
>> occurs and 2 more where "natural extension" occurs. On one other page
>> "natural extension" occurs with an informal meaning.
>>
>> For a reference, I have attached the page of P1788.1 with the
>> proposed changes.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ned
>> <P1788_1_MAIN-p17.pdf>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------
>
> Nathalie Revol INRIA Grenoble - Rhone Alpes
> LIP - projet AriC tel: (33) 4 72 72 84 36
> Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon fax: (33) 4 72 72 80 80
> 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Revol INRIA Grenoble - Rhone Alpes
LIP - projet AriC tel: (33) 4 72 72 84 36
Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon fax: (33) 4 72 72 80 80
69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------