My comment was only relating to ordinary floating point, I still don't really understand unums.
On Thursday, 30 July 2015 14:47:20 UTC+1, Tom Breloff wrote: > > Simon: if I understand what you're suggesting, you'd like to add a > "rounding direction" flag whenever the ubit is set that would indicate > which direction you *would* round if you wanted to? I like this idea, as > it allows you to throw away the implicit open interval in favor of a > rounded exact value (if that's what you want). You potentially get the > best of both worlds, but with the speed/memory penalty of setting that > extra bit? I can't really comment yet on how much processing this would > add... > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Simon Byrne <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 22:07:45 UTC+1, Steven G. Johnson wrote: >>> >>> And I don't see a clear practical use-case for an inexact bit per value, >>> as opposed to a single inexact flag for a whole set of computations (as in >>> IEEE). >>> >> >> Probably not quite what others had in mind, but an instruction-specific >> inexact flag (and rounding mode) would make it possible to implement >> round-to-odd fairly neatly (e.g., see here >> <http://www.exploringbinary.com/gcc-avoids-double-rounding-errors-with-round-to-odd/>), >> >> which would in turn allow implementing all the "formatOf" operations in the >> IEE754-2008 standard. >> > >
