Re: Motion P1788.1/M004.02: NO

["Nedialkov, Ned" <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 20, 2016, at 13:37, Ian McIntosh <ianm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree. The simplified standard should be a flavour of the full standard. I do appreciate all the work that's gone into it and hope this can be resolved.

My view is keep it simple and functional and get it into “production” as soon as possible. I don’t believe

that e.g. rational literals will make a big difference in practice. There might be some applications of them in academia, but we really want to get into industrial applications. 

P1788.1 does not contradict P1788. 

The following quotes are from the abstract: 

"This standard is a simplified version and a subset of the IEEE Std 1788TM-2015 for Interval Arithmetic and  includes those operations and features of the latter that in the the editors’ view are most commonly used in  practice. “

"A program built on top of an implementation of IEEE P1788.1 should compile and run, and give identical output  within round off, using an implementation of IEEE Std 1788TM-2015, or any superset of the former.” 

"Compared to IEEE Std 1788TM-2015, this standard aims to be minimalistic, yet to cover much of the functionality  needed for interval computations. As such, it is more accessible and will be much easier to implement, and thus  will speed up production of implementations. “

Ned

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


<graycol.gif>Evgenija Popova ---2016-06-20 11:41:11 AM---I vote NO. In my opinion producing two non-conforming interval standards will be a

From: Evgenija Popova <epopova@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ian McIntosh/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Date: 2016-06-20 11:41 AM
Subject: Motion P1788.1/M004.02: NO

---

I vote NO.

In my opinion producing two non-conforming interval standards will be a
bad message for the end-users.

I would vote YES if P1788.1 was in conformance (flavor) to IEEE Std
1788-2015.

Evgenija Popova

--
Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences