Notes for meeting at Hewlett Packard in Palo Alto on Wednesday
	7/13/05 in the Von Neumann Room in Building 4.  Peter Markstein
	hosted us.  Dick Delp, Mike Cowlishaw, Jim Thomas, David Hough,
	& Dan Zuras attended.  Eric Schwartz, Mark Erle, & Jeff Kidder
	were on the phone.


	We started with the draft review & finished around 2:20.

	We began with debug.txt (1-6).  People generally seem to think
	its too vague to move into the body of the draft for now.

	Next: snan.htm (2-6).  To make signalling NaNs (& now trapping
	NaNs) optional.  There have been objections raised from the sNaN
	column.  Some also object to the introduction of an optional
	trapping NaN for various reasons.

	Next: static-modes.htm (2-5).  To apply modes (rounding, et al)
	statically.  Mike objected on the grounds that an interpretive
	language can be purely dynamic in its scoping rules.  This
	'meta' problem can be used by sufficiently malicious programmers
	to conceal a change of modes that defeats any reasonable notion
	of 'static'.  We ended up discussing that rather than a static
	mode what we really have in mind that the programmer should have
	the expressive power to say (a) I would like this operation/
	expression/block to be evaluated in this precision/rounding/
	exception mode, or (b) I would like it to be evaluated as if
	some mode change (external to me) would apply to this code, or
	(c) I don't care.  Also this should be a requirement & therefore
	a SHALL.  Making it a SHOULD would defeat the purpose.  We also
	discussed just how 'paranoid' a compiler should be about the
	convention that function calls don't change some global mode.
	The reckless level would be to not know & not care.  The truely
	paranoid level would be to save & restore all modes on the
	procedure call.  Jim argued that an adequate level of paranoia
	was to not move code around function calls.  While that seems
	practical is seems barely more than reckless to me.

	Next: resumable.htm (1-5).  Resumable modes are abrupt
	underflow, presubstitution, & the scaled product functions (in
	lieu of counting mode).  We spent some time discussing whether
	the definition of operations which take arrays as operands or
	used unusual arithmetic in the intermediates.  There is an
	obvious ULP*(N/2) error bound on the result & we would like it
	to be unbiased but its not clear how to both specify & test
	that.  Jeff was also concerned that the product of a great many
	numbers which can be arrived at exactly SHOULD be computed
	exactly.

	Next: nonresumable.htm (1-2).  Nonresumable modes could be
	implemented by some sort of try/catch mechanism.

	Dave mentioned that he withdrew the user trap proposal as it is
	largely covered by the resumable trap proposal.

	We adjourned around 4:30.