From: wheeler@aphrodite (David Wheeler)
Subject: Re: AQS95 floatin point relational tests
Date: 1997/03/13
Date: 1997-03-13T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5g9bbm$p7h@news.ida.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 552293175wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk
JP Thornley (jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: The results of delving into my own archive is given below.
: Clearly, anyone using the AQS should look carefully at 5.5.6 and 7.2.7,
: as well as 7.2.2 to 7.2.4, and make the most sensible interpretation...
And said Tucker Taft's response was:
: This is a bug in AQ&S. Several of the reviewers of AQ&S pointed out
: this mistake, but alas, it somehow managed to slip through. One claim
: was that this statement was due to Norman Cohen, and hence indisputable.
: However, Norm (or at least NC1, as we used to call his non-alter-ego ;-)
: has since disavowed all connection with this statement.
I'd like to see the AQ&S corrected.
Any suggestions on how this might be accomplished?
One possibility: someone could try to develop a correction that the
original AQ&S reviewers agree to.
--- David A. Wheeler
dwheeler@ida.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-03-13 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-03-10 0:00 AQS95 floatin point relational tests William Dale Jr
1997-03-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-03-12 0:00 ` JP Thornley
1997-03-13 0:00 ` David Wheeler [this message]
[not found] ` <332691DA.59C6@lmco.com>
1997-03-13 0:00 ` JP Thornley
1997-03-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox