- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:10:32 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Hello Anne, On 2014/07/11 18:14, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:53 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" > <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> 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. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_shift, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Rotate_right_logically.svg/450px-Rotate_right_logically.svg.png. 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