Re: voting period begins, until Feb. 12: "natural interval extension": friendly amendment to M001.02
I vote YES.
Regards
Jean-Michel
--
Jean-Michel Muller, http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller
> Le 29 janv. 2016 à 23:39, Nathalie Revol <Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> 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/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------