On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:35:50 -0000, Paul A Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote:
Following the view of C and C++ Working groups at Redmond that a working implementation of my proposal for math functions was a necessary condition for consideration for a TR-2 standard,
I wasn't there for the discussion at the C standardization committee meeting, but I was there for the discussion in the C++ library working group. My interpretation of the discussion wasn't that a working implementation was necessary, but that the working group was skeptical about this proposal, period. Yes, the main reason for skepticism was that the implemention effort/user benefit ratio was perceived to be too large. So yes, an implementation might be one of the things that would help to change some people's minds. But if that's the goal you're setting yourself for an implementation, then it dictates the kind of work you'll need to do: you'll need to show that it's possible to produce a high quality implementation (let's say: maximum error of at most a few ulps for the entire range of every function) without heroic effort. I know that may seem like a tall order, but if your goal is to change the committees' minds then you need to understand the reasons people thought what they did. --Matt