Re: [encoding] Last Call Comment: Arithmetic Right Shift

Hello Anne,

On 2014/07/11 18:14, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
> <> wrote:
>> I very much agree that we don't want to talk about the *exact*
>> representation of the operand. What I'm proposing is to talk about the
>> *minimum* size of the operands necessary for correct operation.
> Seems fair.  Did you mean to make this email public?

Yes. Just fixed a moment ago. Thanks for catching it.

> How about this: "Arithmetic right shifts in this standard require
> operands with at least twenty-two bits precision." Feel free to reply
> on the list.

Well, after a bit more thought, I think that because we are dealing with 
unsigned quantities, using "Logical right shifts" would actually be better.


That would allow us to shave one more bit off the maximum, so you could 
write "at least twenty-one bits precision" :-). Of course this one bit 
is completely irrelevant, but logical shift is conceptually the right 
thing to use. I'm sorry I didn't get there immediately.

> I see you are using a J. initial. Do you want me to update the
> acknowledgments section?

If I have an initial, it's J., but I don't always use it, so you can 
save that time/commit for something more important. But thanks for 
checking anyway.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 11:11:18 UTC