James Giles writes:
> Not that this calls into question the quality of the original interpretation.
I'll not dispute that.
> And, they were working at a time when there were no implementations
> for which carrying *more* precision was more efficient than chopping
> an intermediate back...
That part I seriously doubt. I think this is *EXACTLY* the kind of
thing the interpretation was about. Note that the interpretation was
not passed until 1994. It was debated, and various answers proposed
for many years prior to that (note the interpretation number). But it
wasn't until 1994 that it passed. Regardless of whether one does or
does not think it was wisely done, I don't think that one can
plausibly argue that the committee wasn't well aware of such
implementations at the time. I certainly recall one such f77
implementation from 10 years earlier, and I doubt that was the first
ever such.
--
Richard Maine
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|