[std-interval] Mathematical relations and default initialization
Lawrence at Crowl.org
Sun Oct 1 23:01:12 PDT 2006
On 10/1/06, Sylvain Pion <Sylvain.Pion at sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
> > Is it "risky"? There are enough good interval systems out there for
> > market forces to weed out the shoddy ones or force them to improve. Or
> > am I naive?
> Well, past experience with C++98 shows that compiler vendors have
> And I don't see intervals as being the top-priority of the majority
> of customers to put pressure on vendors, so they might be tempted to
> implement a dumb thing just to claim standard compliance quickly.
My guess is that vendors will probably respond to an interval standard
in three stages:
(1) Ignore the intervals and put them on the list of unimplemented features.
Pretty much all compilers have them, particularly early in the standards
(2) Produce a "reasonably accurate but no special-magic" library-based
(3) Produce a compiled implemenation, but probably only after there is
substantial customer demand.
I think that just from the engineering point of view, doing 2 without doing
it well enough to be useful would be a waste of time. And I have fairly
high confidence that the engineer that gets the task is not going to be
satisfied with producing [1;2]+[1;2] yielding [-300;470]. :-)
More information about the Std-interval