[std-interval] Suggestions for the 2006-09 draft
Dr John Pryce
j.d.pryce at ntlworld.com
Thu Sep 21 10:55:11 PDT 2006
Bill
At 22:18 20/09/06, you wrote:
>The 2006-09 (revision 1) draft is much better than earlier versions.
>See:
><http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2067.pdf>
>The authors have done a lot of work and should be commended for it.
I liked your comments. I feel Guillaume and colleagues tend to see
things too much from the implementation viewpoint and you have
emphasized principles. In particular I am massively in favour of
"opaqueness" of the data representation. But, being a C++ beginner, I
can't comment on issues that depend on details of the language spec.
Opaqueness raises the question of how to tie the precision of
interval<T> to that of T, which I posed in a posting one or two days
ago. As their text stands, I believe that opaqueness would allow the
implementations of interval<float>, interval<double> and
interval<long double> to be all identical.
What do you think?
Regards
John
Dr John and Mrs Kate Pryce
142 Kingshill Rd
Swindon, Wiltshire SN1 4LW
UK
Tel (+44)1793-331062
More information about the Std-interval
mailing list