[std-interval] C++ committee feedback

[Sylvain Pion]

George,

George Corliss wrote:
> Sylvain,
> 
> Congratulations, and thanks to you and the rest of your team.

Thanks.

> Can you point us to the most recent version of the proposal?

So far this is still what Guillaume sent a few weeks ago.

> I would encourage you to send this report also to the reliable_computing
> alias with a renewed invitation to subscribe here.

Yes, but I would wait a bit more.  I think that there are still a
few big questions that need to be discussed here (and I would
appreciate if new people give a fresh look at a more polished
version of the proposal in some time):

1- the set of functions which we want to propose for standardization.
2- the required precision for these functions.
3- the mathematical semantic of intervals (cset versus other models...).
4- how to deal with comparisons of intervals.


I propose to begin by discussing the list of functions here.
The current proposal does not include cos/sin/exp/log for example,
which I think now is a mistake, but the question is to determine
what set we want exactly.
In a couple of days I expect to send a list of functions
(after having a look at the C89 and C99 standards "math.h"),
then proposing a list which matches the criteria of usefulness,
implementation difficulty, completeness, and existing implementations.
Does this sound OK ?


BTW, so far we have 51 subscribers here, and we got more than 40
answers to the questionnaire.

-- 
Sylvain