I'm also sorry if you felt like you were being criticized in any way for
proposing alternate behaviors. Please keep in mind that any disagreement is
just that – disagreement. Even if everyone seems disagree with you, please
do make your case. As you've noted, they may change their minds – or they
might not. We can't come to decisions unless everyone tries to make the
case for what they believe is the best behavior in a civil, reasoned
fashion. To me, the fact that these behavior both changed, despite
initially being unpopular, indicates just how important this kind of
discussion is.

Regarding this particular change, I'm personally not really in favor of the
default being the IEEE ties-to-even behavior – I don't think the numerical
argument in its favor is really compelling and I think the current C-like
round-ties-from-zero behavior is less surprising and should continue to be
the default. But I'm not the one doing the work on this and I'm not the
most informed person to make such a decision. So let's try the IEEE
behavior and see how it goes. If this turns out to be problematic or
annoying (I kind of suspect it will), we can still change our minds before
Julia 1.0, so now is the time to give it a shot.

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Simon Byrne <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Friday, 26 December 2014 06:14:34 UTC-6, Hans W Borchers wrote:
>>
>> I started this thread long time ago with a question about rounding rules
>> and the IEEE floating point standard. I felt like being criticized for even
>> thinking Julia could follow the "round-to-even" rule. Now I learn that
>> Julia version 0.4 will apply this rule (as default?).
>>
>
> I apologise if you felt I was being critical, that was not at all my
> intention. These are complicated issues, and I don't claim to have all the
> solutions. In fact, we still have yet to resolve the problem with the
> digits argument: I have just opened an issue explaining the problem here:
>
> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/9464
>
> Contributions to the discussion are certainly welcome.
>
> -simon
>

Reply via email to