Hi all, here is some of the key action items thanks to Larry Lewis's notes
on the stats feedback from Oleksandr's comment review

1) change var to variance

2) change stdev to standard_deviation

3) remove quantiles for the initial paper

4) have median return a value…which could be a value that’s not in the data

Vote on P2376R0 Comments on EH on Stats from Johan Lundberg: is there
general feeling this is a good direction

SF WF N WA SA

7/5/2/0/0

Cheers.

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:37 AM Guy Cpp via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> "I'm absolutely styling"
>
> Fantastic.
>
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 15:12, Michael Wong via SG19 <sg19_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Attendees:
>> Michael Wong
>> Richard Dosselmann
>> Will Wray
>> Oleksandr Koval
>> Scott Moe
>> Scott McMillan
>> René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
>> Larry Lewis
>> Phil Ratzloff
>> Joe Sachs
>> Luke D'Alessandro
>> Andrew Lumsdaine
>> Ritwik Dubey
>> Johan Lundberg
>> Guy Davidson
>> jonan lundberg (desktop)
>> Marco Foco
>> Notes:
>>
>> 14:01:47 Hi everybody. Can you guys hear me.
>> 14:01:53 Alright, sounds good.
>> 14:01:57 Let me see if I can get him, he could hear something here well.
>> 14:02:08 Okay,
>> 14:02:15 looks like this version of zoom now is doing automatic
>> transcription for us. Yes, I'm experimenting with this, I enabled it so
>> that I can see how it works and see if this is something we want in a cell
>> meetings.
>> 14:02:29 I tried it yesterday with sg 14.
>> 14:02:41 And it worked really, I mean the word translated was really good
>> and I actually went back and started cleaning up words, although I don't
>> believe it understand anything other than English.
>> 14:02:45 Bonjour.
>> 14:02:46 It shouldn't.
>> 14:02:46 It shouldn't go me of mine here as to me allied Nicole my Yeah.
>> 14:02:53 No, it doesn't understand Chinese German or French any other
>> language.
>> 14:02:58 Language.
>> 14:03:05 We all have to store smells
>> 14:03:05 bad.
>> 14:03:09 bad. I can try Spanish if you want. Yeah, Go for it.
>> 14:03:14 All at all those sucky
>> 14:03:20 piano.
>> 14:03:22 I cannot stand a student doesn't seem to get it so
>> 14:03:29 so much fun we have, we can have with an automatic translator.
>> 14:03:37 Oh, my God.
>> 14:03:40 Hey guys, I'm, I'm going to be in a little bit of trouble
>> chairing this call. And I wonder if I can prevail on somebody to chair it
>> for me. And maybe guy, because he's had a little bit of experience yes
>> actually a lot of experience yesterday with 27 people.
>> 14:03:57 Would you be able to do another cheering for me. I'm afraid I'm
>> having my dinner right now.
>> 14:04:06 I ordinarily I would actually be charged by.
>> 14:04:09 I'm absolutely styling.
>> 14:04:14 I could take over in half an hour. No, no it's okay I don't look
>> at other people maybe Renee on, or Larry, I unfortunately have to work at
>> the same time.
>> 14:04:24 Okay, let's see I think I'll Richard he's been doing this for a
>> while.
>> 14:04:29 I would love to but sadly I actually have another meeting
>> starting in an hour and a half.
>> 14:04:34 Fortunate reality the online world. Understood.
>> 14:04:37 Anyone else Larry, would you be interested.
>> 14:04:47 I'd be, can you hear me. Yeah. Okay, I'd be happy to do it but I
>> have no idea what to do.
>> 14:04:47 This that there is an agenda that I put out and all you have to
>> do is share screen on it and then drive it along the way.
>> 14:04:55 Well that may be harder than you think.
>> 14:04:57 This. There's always time to learn so I'm going to tell you what
>> I'll do this first of all make your calls and see if that'll enable a whole
>> bunch of new buttons for you.
>> 14:05:09 This is Larry is going to be presenting some, some stuff to you
>> right, of course, yes, he will have to, you know, definitely have to have
>> to do that so actually I'm going to enable share screen for everybody so
>> that they can do that.
>> 14:05:21 so I think today's main agenda is we got some really valuable
>> feedback from a couple of people Alexander's on, I think. And who else was
>> giving feedback to, to, to your document on stats.
>> 14:05:39 So stats has not been reported yet so oh I should actually go
>> through the normal process while Larry is setting up.
>> 14:05:58 Yeah, I'm gonna go find my, please go find my agenda document
>> that I sent out the agenda email I sent out yesterday was Tuesday. It will
>> be in your email somewhere.
>> 14:06:00 Yeah I forwarded that on to you learn.
>> 14:06:03 Okay, hold on.
>> 14:06:04 Okay, so.
>> 14:06:08 Okay. It starts out with roll call participants adopted Jen
>> Yeah, yeah. So you shared screen on that try sharing screen on that
>> document on your computer.
>> 14:06:16 Wait, wait a second, I'm looking at that.
>> 14:06:26 Okay, so what I'll do is I'll do the roll call. Now since we are
>> already keeping track of roll call on the zoom report. I don't actually
>> have to write anybody's names down but I will call them out I see Larry
>> lewis i see guy Davison I see Joe Sachs, I
>> 14:06:35 see Johan Lindbergh I see Alexander Coble I see Phil rats LA I
>> see Renee Rivera, I see Richard awesome and I see Scott McMillan, I see.
>> 14:06:44 Scott Moore, I see will Ray and Michael long, and this is the
>> May 13 sG 19 call.
>> 14:06:55 So there's also a list of ISO code of conduct guidelines at the
>> top, that people are instructed to read and to acquaint themselves,
>> basically all it says is be nice, be decent to each other.
>> 14:07:10 and then we'll all get along.
>> 14:07:16 I think for today's call. We are mostly going to be going
>> through the feedback for Richard Dawson in some stats paper which, which
>> was published on a cell and but it has not been scheduled yet for LEWG, but
>> they know about it, they have a lot of things
>> 14:07:32 on their plate so they're just waiting to schedule it. But in
>> the meantime, there's actual feedback from people read the paper, which is
>> great, is we don't, we can actually make some adjustments on the fly
>> already, and that's fine.
>> 14:07:46 Sorry wasn't to the reinforcement learning.
>> 14:07:48 And there's also reinforcement learning Yep, that's right, I'm
>> going to get to that. And so, but I don't know if Larry and these guys have
>> prepared anything yet.
>> 14:07:59 But something, actually, which I have, which is, is a work in
>> progress, but which I definitely want to discuss a little bit. So, I'll do
>> that at the end after we get through all of those.
>> 14:08:11 So I think it's more important to get through the feedbacks
>> right away. Be from Johan Lindbergh and from Alexandra Kobo.
>> 14:08:20 And then we can end up, go I suspect this meeting might be
>> short, it'll probably be an hour anyway. So, and then after that we will do
>> the reinforcement learning.
>> 14:08:28 If the schedule is good with you guys, if that's good with you,
>> Larry.
>> 14:08:32 Yeah.
>> 14:08:35 So, I have up the wonderful application known as Notepad.
>> 14:08:41 Got it.
>> 14:08:43 She wanted me to give you a shot of taking the screen here.
>> 14:08:47 Well, you probably don't need to now because I think, Richard
>> will probably bring up was paper. And then he can he can listen to the
>> feedbacks, and then you just have to take notes.
>> 14:08:59 Go, Richard. Are you ready to, to bring up the paper.
>> 14:09:05 I can, can I just have a couple of months grab some blank paper
>> notes, taking the lead myself I'll come back in about five minutes. Yeah,
>> go ahead and explain the corner the procedure to everything here then.
>> 14:09:10 Okay, so I will do that now.
>> 14:09:18 So guys, um, we got feedback from Johan, and from Alexander,
>> Alexander I don't think you've been on this call before Would you like to
>> introduce yourself.
>> 14:09:31 Yeah, I'm just developer who tried to implement those steps
>> proposal so I am actually I'm not familiar with the whole process of like
>> how committed works.
>> 14:09:43 Okay.
>> 14:09:44 Thank you very much uu, the bread and butter of how committee
>> works is, is based depending on people like you who can do these kinds of
>> things.
>> 14:09:54 And Johan also gave feedback as well too. So I'll explain a
>> little bit.
>> 14:10:00 This is actually a little bit of an unusual group sg 19 machine
>> learning is a outreach group, because we don't have the expertise in the
>> committee in meaning, there is only a very few machine learning, experts
>> are that kind in the committee.
>> 14:10:15 We are permitted to outreach to other people who are available,
>> much more specialist in that domain. So as a result, whereas normally you
>> would need to do jump through all kinds of hoops to get into the committee
>> be a member, your national body member.
>> 14:10:30 This is all dispense with and.
>> 14:10:33 And now since we have this pandemic thing, we can definitely do
>> a lot of things live. I mean sorry not live but on zoom call, which means
>> that you don't have to pay money now even better because in the past you
>> might have to have to pay money for a trip
>> 14:10:44 to got to show up and all that stuff, or the very least, talk to
>> somebody who goes there, and then have them proxy you while you can't
>> attend because you have a job and on and you know I'm totally
>> understandable.
>> 14:10:57 So, having said that, this is actually the perfect time to do
>> something like this where we can just get the feedback, look at it and then
>> see what we can do to adjust that.
>> 14:11:06 Having said that, though, you could definitely join your own
>> national committee.
>> 14:11:11 I'll quickly explain how that works because actually, I just
>> answered a question from from, Kate.
>> 14:11:20 On one of guys books I think about how committees work so let me
>> just explain the committee's that ISO committees work like the United
>> Nations, they are, they have their national delegations except get sent to
>> them.
>> 14:11:34 So each country has its own delegation.
>> 14:11:38 And there's a head of delegation. So Canada is called Standards
>> Council of Canada, the UK is called British Standards Institute, the Asana.
>> 14:11:48 The American is called insights, or used to be called and see if
>> there's some standards is still quite antsy.
>> 14:11:59 But each country has its own, but not every country belongs to
>> the ISO standard has not every country has a standard development
>> organization. Most do.
>> 14:12:06 And even if they haven't a standard development organization or
>> an organization that sto might not have joined the c++ part. They might
>> have joined what other things like elevators and and railroads, but they
>> didn't join the c++ part.
>> 14:12:18 So, depending on how deep you want to dive into this rabbit
>> hole, you could go through and try to figure out, you know, which country
>> it is that you belong to, and can do do they have an SEO, and they have an
>> SEO does that as do.
>> 14:12:35 That is still join the group that's relevant for c++.
>> 14:12:40 You can do that, but I can also just tell you right now by just
>> going to displace.
>> 14:12:44 Okay, I'll quickly share my screen here.
>> 14:12:49 Okay. If you go to I did you just search for a sales.
>> 14:12:54 sc 22, which is our parent body, you'll find all the parts that
>> belongs to the all the working groups that belongs to this, and under this
>> thing that says participating members if you click on that you'll find all
>> the countries that have participation
>> 14:13:08 status and the name of the acronym of countries SPL.
>> 14:13:13 And you'll see that these guys are participating which means
>> they vote. And these guys are observing, which means they don't get to vote
>> but they can show up.
>> 14:13:22 If your country is not on any of these. That means you don't
>> either you don't have an SEO, or your SEO never bothered to join c++, which
>> means either way it means a huge amount of work for you to try to get
>> involved, unless you can talk to somebody who
>> 14:13:37 was a friendly country or something like someone like us and
>> just go directly in. So we're trying to make those things a lot easier.
>> Okay.
>> 14:13:47 guy Davidson Davison Go ahead.
>> 14:13:50 Guy Davison Go ahead. Yeah, so it might be worth mentioning that
>> whilst it might seem like a huge amount of work.
>> 14:13:58 It can happen quite smoothly and we only have to look at how to
>> discover who turned up at CVP con in 2000 and right now I think it was an
>> interesting paper on CTR and then two years later she formed and is now
>> chairing the Czech national body.
>> 14:14:14 Yeah, but some countries, it's not a huge amount of work for
>> some countries, it can be a huge amount of work. and lately it's getting a
>> lot easier. So, all Xander depending on which country you're from.
>> 14:14:26 If you see any of these countries on your list, then you could
>> actually join. Now having said that they are also more conditions, being
>> part of a delegation.
>> 14:14:35 As far as I can tell, is not doesn't necessarily mean your
>> country of birth. I've been particularly permissive in terms of my
>> definition I for Canada, it's basically if you.
>> 14:14:59 We have you live here.
>> 14:14:50 You were born, or you were born here, or your home or your
>> company is here.
>> 14:15:01 So those are three ways you could actually belong to Canada.
>> 14:15:05 So I don't know which, which country are you in Alexandra.
>> 14:15:09 Yeah, I'm in the Ukraine, it's actually in the list, and I
>> wanted to clarify that these countries from the left side, they actually
>> participants in the c++ so Commedia.
>> 14:15:21 OK, so the participating countries are participating at all
>> level of sc 22.
>> 14:15:30 So, we don't talk about the working group levels so you can join
>> any of these working groups within se 22 So yes, the answer is as c++ says
>> yes, but you can also do C, or cobalt.
>> 14:15:43 Okay.
>> 14:15:47 And the difference between the countries on the left is that
>> they get to vote and the countries on the right don't get to vote yet.
>> 14:15:53 Okay.
>> 14:15:59 Alright.
>> 14:15:58 All right, so let's say with that Richard, are you ready to, to,
>> to start. I am Yes. Okay, go ahead, please.
>> 14:16:09 So it's good probably if you can bring up your the documents so
>> that when people talk to it, they can sort of.
>> 14:16:18 Yeah, there we go. Thank you.
>> 14:16:20 Hey, so we had made some revisions following I believe that was
>> in April was last time we looked at it, Johan there from Sweden has some
>> great feedback, they were some minor revisions, we went ahead and made
>> those.
>> 14:16:36 and they have now appeared in the mailing list.
>> 14:16:40 So in the last little bit, Alexander has been so great to
>> contact us and provide some additional feedback here that will help better
>> this proposal.
>> 14:17:02 And as Michael said, this thing has not been reviewed by the
>> committee yet, which means we have the option now of making changes before
>> they see it. So this is definitely the time to make those changes as on a
>> separate screen here the feedback from Alexandre,
>> 14:17:12 I believe everyone has that email.
>> 14:17:14 I've been going through it a little bit on my own.
>> 14:17:17 And I believe most of these are very reasonable and very logical
>> changes to be made.
>> 14:17:24 First one here talks about the updated constraint for the
>> execution policy, changing the Remove CV a ref type to the decay type. No
>> problem. Absolutely.
>> 14:17:36 We can change that kind of thing.
>> 14:17:39 second item on the list at any point if you need to stop and
>> interrupt that's good.
>> 14:17:44 The second point here the stats error should have a constructor
>> that allows you to pass a string to it. Obviously to carry the information
>> about the error.
>> 14:17:57 Absolutely.
>> 14:17:57 Not one fear would be right inside of the stats here will just
>> improve.
>> 14:18:01 You know just. This is our, this is your hands or Alexander's
>> feedback. This is Alexander's exclusively today. Okay.
>> 14:18:13 So I suggested that we have an overloaded constructor here, it
>> takes a string, in order to pass the information of the what function here,
>> describing what the error is, of course, we should have that.
>> 14:18:25 Yeah, so that was overlooked can absolutely be added immediately.
>> 14:18:33 A few of the other issues here let's take care of the easy ones
>> first and then we'll come back because most of the challenging ones are all
>> part of a common theme here, they're all unified.
>> 14:18:45 First of all here.
>> 14:18:47 The use of the naming convention underscore T.
>> 14:18:53 Is that not c++ standard when you define a new type to post fix
>> it with underscore te was I making a mistake with that
>> 14:19:06 looks like guy has a response for that.
>> 14:19:10 There's no.
>> 14:19:11 The only naming convention that we have regarding underscores is
>> that symbols of symbols, beginning with two or one underscore reserved.
>> 14:19:22 There is a habit on some proposal writers to create types with
>> underscore T.
>> 14:19:28 It's useful but it's not mandated and it certainly wouldn't
>> require it wouldn't be sent back.
>> 14:19:33 Luke is responsible for evolution working group is responsible
>> for naming and they might have words to say but over the past year or so
>> I've noticed that we're not quite so
>> 14:19:47 intent on making sure all new types of an underscore te.
>> 14:19:50 It's a hangover from see it's quite useful.
>> 14:19:57 The only place I can think about that has on this party. Now, if
>> this short tense, or using shorthand for the traits.
>> 14:20:12 You know, I mean like, Yeah, I agree with it.
>> 14:20:18 I don't think it's anywhere else.
>> 14:20:21 Currently,
>> 14:20:27 I think more importantly also, I wouldn't worry too much about
>> the names because they will be extensively litigated by library evolution.
>> 14:20:37 So, you know your names of suggestions like revolution will will
>> say yes or no to them and offer alternatives.
>> 14:20:45 So, so don't.
>> 14:20:47 Don't worry too much about the precise detail of names.
>> 14:20:52 Okay. Without then at the moment I guess I'll just drop the
>> underscore key, since it seems to be out of fashion and like you said, the
>> library team is going to have a look at that anybody minor point
>> fortunately.
>> 14:21:06 Let's see if there's any other related simple questions here
>> before we proceed to the challenging ones, another one here with
>> interpolation underscore te no problem to change that.
>> 14:21:35 Okay, all the modes function here or the quantum files.
>> 14:21:28 There is the discussion and the suggestion here that rather than
>> returning.
>> 14:21:35 An interpolated value, such as in the case of a quantum file.
>> What if we instead returned interpreters to the values and allow the user
>> then to have access to them inside of the data structure.
>> 14:21:49 I believe I originally had done this in the first version of the
>> paper, and yen's Mauer spoke up and thought that was a poor idea, we should
>> return values rather than each Raiders, even though for example the max
>> element returns an iterator, I believe
>> 14:22:04 it was the ends who suggested know we should return values,
>> instead of iterating hours.
>> 14:22:12 Anyone have a comment about that I was following a yen's advice
>> believing him to be more experienced in this than myself doing me in the
>> projected values for the raw values.
>> 14:22:26 I think it was just the raw value, just the entire structure
>> itself, whatever it is,
>> 14:22:36 but it can be actually quiet enough in efficient I mean, like in
>> the actual role Hello can be pretty big
>> 14:22:52 that's definitely true. It looks like I had a comment about this.
>> 14:22:58 I was only going to affirm that yes it's certainly worth
>> listening to.
>> 14:23:05 before you make any changes to the paper.
>> 14:23:05 If you said something then Dublin, Ireland, and make the point,
>> otherwise so somebody come back and tell you well no I said this.
>> 14:23:14 And he does turn up at all the wording groups that core groups
>> and the library wording groups, so he does carry considerable way because
>> he is extraordinarily experienced and a very accomplished at wording.
>> 14:23:30 Actually, so my, my take on this.
>> 14:23:34 I started to write stuff about these but that just turned out to
>> be too much I hate cut it out from my other comments paper, and maybe I'll
>> write something about that I think this.
>> 14:23:45 I think the chron tiles and mediums are actually so complicated,
>> compared to the rest of the rest that they really
>> 14:23:58 mean the expectations and use
>> 14:24:02 may differ a lot, but if we want to provide something that looks
>> like. What does in other languages like Python or statistical tools, then
>> it has to return to some kind of value.
>> 14:24:18 And I would, I would feel that it could be very surprising it
>> but it's not a projected value.
>> 14:24:25 And I think it costs a little bit against this pattern to have
>> to return the values in some cases for this other one is optional, and all
>> of that. So, my, my summary of the comments I haven't written yet would
>> probably be that we should pick either either
>> 14:24:50 be really a mass like function where you get an answer that you
>> can use, or like the proposal I started to write for like a generalized
>> element instead, where you actually get full access to everything and then
>> you can do whatever you want but it's super
>> 14:25:09 complicated to use.
>> 14:25:12 I don't agree that we don't want to use work with iterate
>> iterate there's us out here because you want to. We want to have a mean and
>> median and quintiles have the same output the kind of interface.
>> 14:25:33 Wouldn't it also mean that,
>> 14:25:37 you know, because we need to order the containers at times. Now,
>> to get, like, mode.
>> 14:25:48 We would we be exposing an iterator for an internal container.
>> 14:25:56 And so that adds additional complications.
>> 14:25:59 I that's actually where I started with my critique and the ideas
>> are regarding this this paper that I thought like, why isn't it done.
>> 14:26:11 This completely other way, but I don't think that it's the way
>> to go because and also no other.
>> 14:26:18 No user would expect something like that either you'd have to
>> have a very complicated.
>> 14:26:24 You would have to return, like where to where which points, all
>> of the points you interpolated from what interest rates did they have what
>> weight, do they have.
>> 14:26:37 You would have to return, like big structure with information
>> for someone to actually be able to use it.
>> 14:26:45 So I think it's better to just make it a black box.
>> 14:26:50 And then you can have an algorithm, like a generic algorithm
>> that does generic things, but they can do that is not this.
>> 14:26:59 And they could work on whatever they thought you have, you don't
>> have, you can.
>> 14:27:07 Yeah.
>> 14:27:08 Right, so we're kind of wanting to work with a scalar value and
>> if you've got a writers then, now you're talking about dealing with ranges
>> and multiple values and it just doesn't feel quite the right thing.
>> 14:27:29 I help him.
>> 14:27:32 So, as far as I understand we agreed to return value returned
>> values and not the directors and not expose the useful, possibly useful
>> things shuffling that happened because it could be too complicated you
>> expose it.
>> 14:27:51 Yeah.
>> 14:27:54 Okay, so it seems like we still have consensus that we want to
>> return a value. I agree, perhaps now we should probably return the
>> projected value, rather than the whole structure.
>> 14:28:04 If it is like a structure that has five integers let's return
>> the integer inside in question, rather than the whole structure that change
>> could be made.
>> 14:28:13 Yes.
>> 14:28:15 I think I should write down my thought about updates about these
>> things because I thought about what happens with you. you want to.
>> 14:28:27 If you want to keep this by your return an optional for like the
>> right
>> 14:28:36 like one of the two. In case of median. I'm not, I don't think
>> that's.
>> 14:28:45 It would be nice if we could just avoid that, and instead just
>> return a interpolated value, always.
>> 14:28:52 Yeah, I think the first version we did that and somebody
>> corrected me and thought, No, you should give the option of both.
>> 14:29:03 Yeah, but then you have to, this is like a super special case
>> where are you now.
>> 14:29:13 That's the syntax around it becomes pretty annoying I think
>> because do, and and you can only, only do it for media and not for the
>> others because then you would need, like the remainder.
>> 14:29:26 Wait, parts of it.
>> 14:29:29 That's right and you always have to have an F test er there two
>> values yeah and then you have to write your own averaging or interpolation
>> all the time.
>> 14:29:39 Yeah. So So all of this now on hijacking this whole discussion,
>> sorry. But, so, so after like trying to argue in my head that we should
>> this proposal to change to allow arbitrary iterator stuff.
>> 14:29:52 I concluded, no, this this definitely not the right thing
>> because you want to just use it as mean, or whatever.
>> 14:30:00 So, So that's, I wrote.
>> 14:30:03 It works exactly like elements, but you put in a range of me
>> instead.
>> 14:30:22 So, if you want to do stuff like partition and interpolate
>> arbitrary things like records with whatever. And maybe you don't want to
>> interpolate using floating point or anything you want.
>> 14:30:38 and you can use generic algorithm instead.
>> 14:30:42 OK, OK, OK, that's an alternative Yes.
>> 14:30:46 I think we can all agree that quintiles and the median is
>> perhaps the most difficult one here along with the mode, or maybe not but
>> definitely those Quantel suppose a lot of problem, right from the beginning.
>> 14:31:02 I have a question.
>> 14:31:04 So,
>> 14:31:07 The median and quintiles to me are fundamentally a little bit
>> different. Okay, that's, that's absolutely the case yes yeah I mean, the
>> media is mostly one or two and, you know, most of the time, you know, it
>> goes back to you want to make the common things
>> 14:31:24 and the easy things easy, right. Yeah, anything worse than that.
>> 14:31:30 And the default.
>> 14:31:32 You know, and anything more than, non common cases, you know,
>> you want to make it an A possible do but it can be a little bit harder and
>> almost feel like
>> 14:31:43 different functions. But quintiles are going to return multiple
>> values all the time.
>> 14:31:50 So, you know that that's kind of a different case to be it's
>> going to be a vector right i mean that's the way it's going to be or, you
>> know.
>> 14:32:02 So to me, those are those are kind of two different cases.
>> 14:32:07 The way I deal with media and separately from Quantel I guess.
>> 14:32:13 Our.
>> 14:32:14 No. Yeah,
>> 14:32:17 go ahead.
>> 14:32:19 I'm just thinking about the case when the user for example has a
>> large collection of the items, and tier one get item with the medium price
>> for example.
>> 14:32:30 And when we if we turn on a projected file if he can answer this
>> question, he would need one more pass to find this item with the medium of
>> the meat and actually.
>> 14:32:42 Yeah, that's actually, if you want to do that. Yeah, you have to
>> pretty much use elements.
>> 14:32:51 I think because because you need otherwise you need to get the
>> weights, and that depends on, depending on how we designed this on the like
>> this scheme.
>> 14:33:05 Like the quantum scheme, there are all of these different
>> versions of contacts that people use, and actually could even, it's even
>> the case I think yeah so in some cases you don't actually need to calculate
>> all the
>> 14:33:24 same, like partition points depending on which one the schemes
>> you use, so it's not only a question about waiting.
>> 14:33:32 But, and also the way you would wait, like, if you want to like
>> actually get access to the records.
>> 14:33:43 And that's not something you can do while interpolating really
>> than you would think.
>> 14:33:51 I would say use yeah their algorithm system.
>> 14:33:55 This stuff looks like math to me.
>> 14:34:02 Do have existing generic algorithms that can do that.
>> 14:34:07 This is my other. This is my proposal.
>> 14:34:16 It's called 20 375.
>> 14:34:22 It's just I'm just writing it right now but you can you can find
>> it.
>> 14:34:26 It's just a generalization of elements.
>> 14:34:30 That's all it is.
>> 14:34:32 But that's but if you want to do things like that, then you have
>> to do it.
>> 14:34:47 You have to decide how do you interpolate strings, I'll do
>> interpolate time duration so I'll do interpolate post addresses.
>> 14:34:48 You can't really solve that.
>> 14:34:51 I think in this setting.
>> 14:34:57 But I think that we have like a projections for arithmetic
>> values for doing that so we don't need to interpolate the whole strings, at
>> least for now, as a retargeting only arithmetic types when this proposal.
>> 14:35:12 Yeah, but then why do you need the records.
>> 14:35:19 Well, that's just one of the use case I can't imagine like we
>> have some records, and they all have prices, and we want to find record.
>> For example, with the median price.
>> 14:35:32 But that's, that's an element.
>> 14:35:37 Actually, so that's an element that the only difference between
>> elements.
>> 14:35:42 And these contacts, is that you get help in calculating like how
>> many things are in the collection, and you get how wasting them together.
>> 14:35:56 Okay, now, Now I got to find. Okay, thank you.
>> 14:36:03 Okay, that's actually a very nice answer suggests that if you
>> want access to the element you should be using something like an element,
>> or your hands new proposal this 2035 2375 instead.
>> 14:36:15 And we should make this a math pay proposal where we just give
>> you that value that you're looking for.
>> 14:36:22 In which case, maybe we do want to start interpolating or
>> averaging them together, get rid of that optional and just return one
>> value, just like you would expect in mathematics.
>> 14:36:35 I guess we were trying to provide both a mathematical median or
>> quantum style, and we were allowing you to get access to these elements,
>> when these should be separated into two different procedures.
>> 14:36:51 The amp element ID and then the mathematical medium or Quantock
>> keep them separate.
>> 14:36:54 This, this took me a month of involuntary thinking to realize
>> it's it's really two quite different things, possibly, that we want to do.
>> 14:37:06 Okay, well that would definitely clear it up, we would focus on
>> the mathematics hear them and give the user what they expect like quantum
>> or a medium, not get a Raiders or multiple values just a single medium or
>> Quantel that they expect
>> 14:37:24 that could definitely simplify a lot here, I think.
>> 14:37:29 Hey, looking at some of the other points here some of the
>> weights, being larger than one week definitely can relax that restriction
>> and allow for that.
>> 14:37:40 Just a brief note again and Quantel is about the sorted versus
>> unsorted versions that was originally ends Mauer idea to separate them into
>> the sorted and unsorted.
>> 14:37:52 If they're unsorted you only need to make one pass across it, or
>> you need. If it's sorted you only need to make one pass. If it's unsorted
>> you needed this special random iterator random access range, so that you
>> could swap things around as need be.
>> 14:38:10 So, it was decided that those would be broken into two different
>> things sorted and unsorted for sure.
>> 14:38:18 The quantities for a moment and come back to them here after
>> since there and, again, the most contentious part here
>> 14:38:27 with other minor issues that are just technical matters to clear
>> up and not not too difficult.
>> 14:38:34 Again with the namings the underscore keys, we can drop that
>> rather using a Boolean for ketosis rather than are using a parameter,
>> rather than a Boolean sure that'll be consistent everything will be a
>> parameter.
>> 14:38:48 The name variants here var as a statistics person I always saw
>> on university that variants and in textbooks was always written var anyone
>> like the full name variants instead of var
>> 14:39:10 mathematics.
>> 14:39:12 So cause Did you say var.
>> 14:39:14 Yeah, which also means, you know the difference between
>> Mathematics and Computer Science right computer science var is variable.
>> 14:39:24 I'm.
>> 14:39:33 mentioned like that vs but just open civic the reference and he
>> found the name function calls about what would he expect. I mean, the
>> standard library is not only for mathematicians, it's for a wide range.
>> 14:40:06 I like to longer name so suffer for so this is quite specific.
>> Also, one could. It's. There are not that many three letter.
>> 14:40:10 things that we
>> 14:40:14 three that's right so far is quite a land grab.
>> 14:40:18 And whilst far does indeed, you're correct. I also a novelist
>> intuition, and when I see vault. That's what I see. However, the context of
>> c++ is such that we have a lot, a lot, that identifies and var only leaves
>> hamsters.
>> 14:40:34 Because we're mathematicians look at the mathematical.
>> 14:40:38 I think it was paid to assume as little as possible, of the
>> audience.
>> 14:40:46 Okay, okay fair enough again I was coming from the bias side of
>> having a math background like all of us, sure we can change that to
>> variants yeah yeah and there is a good point that yes that looks like
>> variable as Larry says, and someone looking at the
>> 14:40:58 standard library might think this is a variable or some sort of
>> sure we could change that to bear needs. Yeah.
>> 14:41:06 All of the other names are spelled out in full as well so that
>> would be consistent then sure we can change that.
>> 14:41:13 What do you use for standard deviation.
>> 14:41:16 St DEVB enough for them.
>> 14:41:21 If anybody confuse that with anything else.
>> 14:41:26 Do we want to do a standard underscore deviation.
>> 14:41:34 Yes. Well,
>> 14:41:34 actually, all the, this so called special math functions are
>> very long names, they are released.
>> 14:41:44 I don't know info. I don't think we should be scared of long
>> names, really, you know, lexicographical comparison. That's hardly.
>> 14:41:52 You know that doesn't roll off the time, but don't say it means
>> there's also the scope if you as a programmer, absolutely sick of topic and
>> parents, you can always alias these names yourself.
>> 14:42:05 I think the smart thing to do, sorry that's an awful thing to
>> say no I don't mean this.
>> 14:42:11 I think the kind thing to do, to all the consumers of C plus
>> classes to be as an ambiguous as possible with our names.
>> 14:42:29 Looking at the special, special mouth ones right now Riemann
>> underscore zeta SPH underscore vessel function. Yeah, we could go ahead and
>> say, standard underscore variants, or standard underscore TV and give the
>> full name there.
>> 14:42:39 Again, we're coming from the perspective of mathematicians it's
>> clear to us but others, they might not. So, yeah, we can definitely do we
>> could make sure.
>> 14:42:51 A couple of other minor points here about rolling exceptions and
>> things like that that's maybe a little bit more detail will come back to
>> that.
>> 14:43:00 Let's look at this big overarching idea of this execution policy
>> something that I realized I might have overlooked.
>> 14:43:08 If we are going to be working with an input range.
>> 14:43:14 We're assuming you have maybe just one scan over the data.
>> 14:43:23 If we start talking about ideas and parallel processing and
>> things like that when you only have potentially one look at the data, there
>> might be issues and concerns with that and that's what Alexander found when
>> he was implementing, maybe he could speak
>> 14:43:36 a little bit more to what he found.
>> 14:43:40 Well, I haven't implemented thorough version of the app.
>> 14:43:43 But at least as far as I know, like all existing algorithms.
>> 14:43:50 With execution policy they all use for what it razors, because
>> how you can paralyze things. When you can know the size. When, when you can
>> read multiple writers like multiple times.
>> 14:44:07 I mean, how can you split this range, with only inputted razors.
>> That's true. Yeah, we haven't seen the full data we don't know the size we
>> don't know how to carve it out.
>> 14:44:17 You'd have to scan it once and then you can't scan it again,
>> you'd have to save it in storage you'd have like you said an old van linear
>> storage problem.
>> 14:44:27 So what I was thinking about earlier today was what if we had a
>> version here where we had two versions and input iterator if you just going
>> to scan over something once, and there's no parallel version.
>> 14:44:40 And then we had forward random moderators and those have
>> overloaded execution policy versions.
>> 14:44:49 So if you're only making one scan, you don't need execution
>> policy, we won't allow that. But we would have overloaded versions that
>> take input or far sorry forward it or writers and those ones could have
>> execution policy control.
>> 14:45:09 Just to clarify, you do.
>> 14:45:14 Do you need random access for competition policies that would, I
>> would have assumed that I believe only for the quintiles would be unsorted
>> where we have to move things around the other ones I think we can get away
>> with a forward iterator like for the
>> 14:45:28 mean.
>> 14:45:35 Okay, so let's talk to you need to know what you need to know.
>> Okay, so you can.
>> 14:45:42 Okay.
>> 14:45:45 And, can anyone please clarify for me How can you iterate salted
>> quanta with only input iterate or when you don't know the size of the range
>> ahead.
>> 14:46:05 I mean that you need to know the Quantel you need first know
>> besides convenient to go back and pick up the right element.
>> 14:46:14 And with the impotent writers, you can do that, and leave until
>> you copy the whole range. This is obviously unreasonable.
>> 14:46:24 Yes, yes, yes, that's a mistake that one really should be a
>> forward iterator so that you can have at least one scan over at first.
>> 14:46:34 To determine the length and then come back to the center or
>> wherever you're looking for. Yes.
>> 14:46:42 Looks like guy has something he can add for this.
>> 14:46:46 Um, I wonder if the I'm embarrassing the unfamiliar with the
>> execution policies, I appreciate how they were but are they guarantees or
>> are they can.
>> 14:46:58 I think we maybe could ask Michael that he would probably be the
>> best answer that.
>> 14:47:07 I originally did not have paralyzed version, I believe it was
>> Michael suggested I did that it seems this year or not.
>> 14:47:17 That's right, Mike was involved with another meeting. Okay, I
>> know that. As far as I understand the pilot, the execution policy stuff, I
>> mean you could you can never say that this implementation is not standard
>> compliance because it's not the panel and
>> 14:47:29 licensing, or anything like that you can't really prove that
>> within the language.
>> 14:47:34 It's not done observable, that's not observable right so, so, so
>> quantity of connotations. As we said many times last meeting. But
>> 14:47:47 I, I am a little bit concerned with.
>> 14:47:53 even having a method that has to scan.
>> 14:48:20 I mean, okay quintile is order, and, but I i would i would
>> assume most users would not expect it to scan twice but. So, yeah. The
>> reason why I was asking if it's a hint or a guarantee is, is this you know
>> if these, these raise capital category is known
>> 14:48:27 at compile time.
>> 14:48:29 And if the parallel. If the execution policy isn't is
>> incompatible with the Israeli category, then you know that that that could
>> solve the problem of being pastor forward iterator.
>> 14:48:43 When a random access iterator is needed to satisfy the execution
>> policy.
>> 14:49:02 Looks like Luke has something you can definitely go ahead and
>> 14:49:10 got a wild animal there that's, that's the reality the online,
>> we got we got a chance to wait for you, not a child but a dog, those, those
>> are just constraints as to what is correct, right so your algorithm is
>> correct if
>> 14:49:26 you can, you know, the implementation is is able to do things
>> based on
>> 14:49:36 requirements. So it's sequential
>> 14:49:48 also was trying to implement it I found that my implementation
>> would completely rely on the existing existing algorithms, because all we
>> basically need is the foremost algorithms, is just the way to combine into
>> separately, calculated.
>> 14:50:12 Statistics information and the mathematical formulas for this,
>> and it should not be pretty hard. So, the final implementation at this mine
>> condition would mostly rely on the existing algorithms.
>> 14:50:37 I also want to bring one interesting moment, found that in this
>> proposal execution policy diversions also are marked context for. So is
>> this a typo or is this intentional because in theory we can use like stood
>> his content evaluated and to completely
>> 14:50:59 ignore any execution policy and execute and calculate everything
>> at compile time, but no existing standard algorithm does that.
>> 14:51:17 Okay, yes I, but I believe that is a table that is a mistake
>> there.
>> 14:51:20 I'm sorry. Could you clarify that mistake again.
>> 14:51:25 That constant expression on the execution policy outside of the
>> standard.
>> 14:51:32 Okay, got it.
>> 14:51:37 Question. Again, or something like
>> 14:51:42 Or something like in here in execution policy.
>> 14:51:48 Forward range,
>> 14:51:52 potentially could be a problem since you only have one scan the
>> data.
>> 14:51:58 Like this. Did we want to have just a non execution policy.
>> 14:52:04 Input iterator, and then a separate version with a forward
>> iterator and execution policy.
>> 14:52:29 Yes, I think, that's fine. Let's like most algorithms are
>> implemented.
>> 14:52:23 Okay, okay, that's what I was thinking. Earlier today when you
>> pointed out the mistake area.
>> 14:52:39 If, however, you have like a vector or a list and you want to do
>> parallelization, then we would have another forward iterator for that case.
>> 14:52:50 Okay, okay, divide those into separate cases then.
>> 14:52:56 Okay, so that actually gives us quite a nice solution to that
>> problem. That's good.
>> 14:53:03 Returning again to the major discussions here, the quantum
>> miles, and the, the medium or indirectly, right from the outset, this was
>> the most difficult problem.
>> 14:53:15 Yes.
>> 14:53:17 It looks like what we've decided here today is we want to move
>> away from an element and allowing the user to access elements and parts of
>> the data structure.
>> 14:53:30 We want this to be more mathematical in nature, like Mumbai, or
>> Python statistics.
>> 14:53:36 So it looks like we're more interested in returning the value,
>> rather than giving deep access to the elements kind of thing.
>> 14:53:44 So we kind of want to merge it into one value if we can.
>> 14:53:50 And we don't want to provide iterator access.
>> 14:53:54 Since that would be non mathematical and you could do that with
>> an element instead.
>> 14:54:01 And we're still going to continue to have this idea I believe of
>> assorted median and assorted quantum and unsorted distorted one would
>> definitely have to have some notion of like a forward iterator so you can I
>> get the size of it, maybe go over it again,
>> 14:54:18 even though that's kind of an ugly thing.
>> 14:54:21 The unsorted one definitely, I believe, is going to meet the
>> random access iterator.
>> 14:54:34 We definitely have to move elements around. So this one I
>> believe needs to be the random access.
>> 14:54:40 And we want to keep the sorted and unsorted separately. The
>> sorted is a little bit less restrictive because it's just the middle point.
>> 14:54:49 The unsorted has to be more restrictive. Since we're going to be
>> using an element to swap things around.
>> 14:54:57 I'm sorry. Within sort of version you're actually sorting the,
>> the original container.
>> 14:55:09 Yes.
>> 14:55:12 Nobody ever seemed to have an objection to that I think there
>> was a problem though some suggested that duplicating and copying was a
>> problem so I think we agree that we would allow it to be switched around.
>> 14:55:23 Anyone have any change of heart about that now.
>> 14:55:29 Sorry doing mean like complete, or just like an element, sort of
>> elements just a partial change, but it would change would change it would
>> not leave the original unmodified it would possibly change it.
>> 14:55:45 Okay, so let me be clear here you talked about starting the
>> original underlying data in response to a function called sorted quintiles
>> no sorry the unsorted the unsorted one here would be moving things around
>> in the original data structure,
>> 14:56:05 believe we saw another function that did something similar maybe
>> and that's where we got the precedents for that.
>> 14:56:13 If I can find that while Luke speaks here, and guy answers.
>> 14:56:19 I don't know, suggest and this may not be appropriate, but a lot
>> of times if you can allow people to move you a container or copy you a
>> container. If they want, you know to preserve their initial container, it
>> would be a cost, right, not move but past
>> 14:56:35 past your reference or move you move you a container so if they
>> if they really don't want you to modify their data. They're going to accept
>> the cost of a copy.
>> 14:56:46 Otherwise, they'll just give you a reference and sort of up to
>> them how they would like to use it now that can be surprising to some users.
>> 14:56:54 So might not be appropriate here but it's an option.
>> 14:57:01 Okay, with that perhaps the Boolean type decision choose if you
>> want to copy it or just go ahead and mix it up it. Well, I guess what I'm
>> saying is you're taking the range here by forwarding reference for the
>> unsorted one note that's a random access or
>> 14:57:19 no I'm just saying sorry I'm saying that are parameter is a
>> forwarding reference. Yep.
>> 14:57:24 So, if I.
>> 14:57:29 It would be nice if there was a way for me as a color to pass
>> you a copy.
>> 14:57:36 If I need to and that may be what's going on here like I find
>> know that this may modify my container.
>> 14:57:41 I will need to make a copy of it.
>> 14:57:44 Otherwise I'm happy to pass your reference.
>> 14:57:46 And that may just be on a user's, it may be on the user to do
>> that.
>> 14:57:52 Okay, giving them a little bit of choice there.
>> 14:57:54 Well, they already have the choice. They can make a copy, and
>> give it to you.
>> 14:57:59 Okay, okay. So I guess what I'm saying is I think it's
>> appropriate to, if it's, you know, if it to give this efficient version to
>> someone who doesn't care if you're if you're manipulating their container
>> with the understanding that if they do care they
>> 14:58:13 can make a copy.
>> 14:58:14 Okay, just make that clear in the documentation then
>> 14:58:19 just to verify something, my brain here I maybe I need more
>> coffee this afternoon.
>> 14:58:25 undistorted quintile refers to the fact that your underlying
>> data is unsorted correct. That's right.
>> 14:58:34 Sure don't like that name.
>> 14:58:39 Watch I'll sell me what you're returning is inserted.
>> 14:58:42 I would much prefer something like Quantel underscore unsorted,
>> but that's just me.
>> 14:58:48 Okay Quantel over unsorted data, something okay I understand
>> what you're seeing yeah it's it's also the mutating contest.
>> 14:58:59 Yes, yes.
>> 14:59:01 I,
>> 14:59:10 I was actually going to address this point that mutating and we
>> do have things like stable partition and partition stable source and
>> source, is there an appropriate prefix.
>> 14:59:21 You know, unsorted content, I'm sure we can do, we can have a
>> much longer than that if we like, really
>> 14:59:28 good for the moon.
>> 14:59:29 We need to use Greek letters like the mathematicians
>> 14:59:36 SG 16th feedback. But yes, Yes we do.
>> 14:59:41 I'm actually looking at that stage on on stage so great now in
>> there. Yeah, that would be a good kind of naming something about Yeah.
>> 14:59:54 Actually Python has pi has both mutating and non mutating there
>> it's absolutely not clear, which one is which one lives in empty array in
>> non pie and the other one lives just in line, non pie.
>> 15:00:09 So because empty array of quantum venues, get mutated in place.
>> Yeah, so I feel like mutated better, and when I see stable.
>> 15:00:23 I think of an understand unstable I think of an unstable
>> algorithm which doesn't.
>> 15:00:28 It just means something completely different to me.
>> 15:00:30 It has nothing to do with mutation mutation is mutation the
>> stability is the ability it's algorithmic.
>> 15:00:38 You can always use an exclamation point right as a second
>> language does that Julia or somebody.
>> 15:00:52 Seriously, I prefer mute. Me either. Some reference to mutation
>> 15:00:59 indicate that yes we are changing the elements that are around
>> in your data structure.
>> 15:01:08 Okay. I'm sure we can agree again once more that quantum miles
>> in the media year, the load the quantity was a really proven to be the most
>> challenging, they're the most.
>> 15:01:17 Unlike the other ones.
>> 15:01:23 There's actually there's one question about them that I that
>> remains, somehow, for me, then that is this
>> 15:01:34 open close baseball thing with.
>> 15:01:38 Does this allow people to do what what they expect to do.
>> 15:01:44 And for median.
>> 15:01:47 Median medium is interesting because it's just, it's not really
>> quantity 0.5, it's integer division.
>> 15:01:55 And there's, there's also percentiles and whatever up titles,
>> there's all these integers integer defined.
>> 15:02:23 Quantum tiles. And that is the thing, and if you, if you look at
>> Wikipedia on percentile you'll find many ways, even for percentiles that
>> are not the same as all these special.
>> 15:02:38 floating point Q from zero to one. So, so I would, I would like
>> to understand. First of all, I found just I think yesterday that in the
>> site pie. There is stats m stats m compiles, which actually has parameters
>> enough to be able to specify with to floats
>> 15:03:05 all them, and nine times of standard kinds of floating point
>> compliance describe that Wikipedia and this comments paper from Poland, I
>> think, as far as I understand, you can't get those currently with compile
>> with a compile some Indian functions in the
>> 15:03:30 paper.
>> 15:03:33 Okay, you're referring to your lamp those paper there yes and we
>> spoke with her.
>> 15:03:39 And I think we decided on this reduce set of functions.
>> 15:03:49 I think what originally I was doing I'm looking at Python simple
>> statistics library now I think I'm meeting the base requirements of just
>> what Python does here not the non pie or any other library I think this was
>> just the basic Python library meeting
>> 15:04:08 its standard
>> 15:04:11 01 well accepted mathematical name for the quantum file that you
>> are calculating
>> 15:04:22 look it up here on the Python library just says quantum divide
>> the normal distribution and and continuous intervals with equal probability.
>> 15:04:31 It seems Quantel seems to be that standard definition and
>> everything else is that an extended term or specialized term for anything
>> else.
>> 15:04:47 Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. Right.
>> 15:04:44 If you look at paper or Wikipedia on compile.
>> 15:04:52 I think the, the way, non paid assets.
>> 15:05:05 There's many many choices on, like if you want to divide by n or
>> n minus one, or if you want to interpolate like from. I mean, there's so
>> many kind of weird arbitrary choices you can do when you interpolate your
>> data like do you want to consider each
>> 15:05:19 kind of been as starting from the left. And the last been
>> update, starting from the rights and then you kind of interpolate from the
>> edges or dissenters or there's um there's the one that the Python does by
>> default is actually quite.
>> 15:05:39 I like it, but it's actually quite different from all of the
>> others.
>> 15:05:45 And it's not the default in most other packages like side pie
>> and maple and hard, and they most of them actually support all of these
>> different ways to do things.
>> 15:05:57 And then we have with an accepted, then people would know right.
>> 15:06:03 I don't think it really has one it's, it's kind of it's like,
>> yeah, Wikipedia.
>> 15:06:11 Number seven or something like that.
>> 15:06:14 Wanting to become a columnist
>> 15:06:19 economists are very good at corralling terms together for each
>> other, maybe they have a, they actually use this stuff lots maybe they have
>> a better glossary.
>> 15:06:31 That's true.
>> 15:06:32 But the interesting thing I think was was his this.
>> 15:06:36 I mean, if you think about being able to generalize this and
>> actually make people, allow people to do what they do to push their current
>> route, so sorry route, are or non pie or whatever they used to c++, if we,
>> if we had something like what site by us.
>> 15:06:58 us. It's two floating point values, and they, depending on what
>> you set these two.
>> 15:07:11 I mean this is, then you get all of these variants variations,
>> described Wikipedia.
>> 15:07:14 And this is still only for floating point.
>> 15:07:19 Kind of interpolation. If you also go to.
>> 15:07:23 If you look at percentiles which is very.
>> 15:07:29 Those kinds of integer based fractions.
>> 15:07:32 That's actually in a way, quite different, because then you can
>> start to interpolate things that don't necessarily require flopping points
>> multiplication.
>> 15:07:44 So you could you could do model.
>> 15:07:50 Some types of maybe not doesn't support dropping points.
>> 15:07:54 You can actually interpolate in in a much broader set of
>> corrected things then flows.
>> 15:08:07 But maybe that's, that's something else but but I find it a
>> little bit
>> 15:08:16 annoying that
>> 15:08:19 we can't. Usually we have too much almost flexibility in c++
>> library, libraries, but
>> 15:08:33 I like to have this, this possibility to specify this all family
>> today call it in, in the rooms in their site by Johann, are you referring
>> to percentiles as divided equally into 101 100 groups.
>> 15:08:53 Yes, but if you look at Wikipedia on how people do that there's
>> also many ways.
>> 15:09:01 And that's only 4% five and then there's also the divide by four
>> and all kinds of include groups that. And if you actually read only
>> 40,000%. Yeah, exactly and that's not the same as 25%.
>> 15:09:18 I really would take Wikipedia with a pinch of salt when it comes
>> to naming things of course much. Yeah, yeah, yeah but but still.
>> 15:09:30 I mean, it allows us to discover that there is a concept of
>> integer compiles that are actually not the same from, from a P.
>> 15:09:40 That is defined by floating point.
>> 15:09:48 What did we do for standard deviation. I mean there's population
>> and sample.
>> 15:09:54 That one we have a parameter there to pass.
>> 15:09:57 I'm thinking with what Johan said if we were able to meet the
>> base requirement or the base standard here set by side pie that might be
>> all right. We would allow you to pass to floating point values, give you
>> all of these variations here.
>> 15:10:12 It leaves open the question but percentiles but at least we
>> could match everything that sci fi is doing with the basic quantum miles is
>> I believe that's enough flexibility.
>> 15:10:24 I prefer. In this case you have any new
>> 15:10:29 rather than infer from two floating point values if we've got
>> nine types we should have an email with nine types of, same with me
>> essentially the same did the same with any of these things will have
>> alternative calculations standard deviation Quantel,
>> 15:10:45 you know, percentile.
>> 15:10:48 That's my.
>> 15:11:05 half of 1.5.
>> 15:11:03 So we started opening it up to making it more generic like that.
>> I know it breaks mystical justification to that.
>> 15:11:11 Historical justification to that.
>> 15:11:22 Yeah, I would.
>> 15:11:17 Yeah.
>> 15:11:22 I find I find it a little bit. I mean,
>> 15:11:31 one could have names for these. I mean one that could be, it
>> could be one argument that has a default value, but there's no reason that
>> because implementation is going to use these two values, there's no reason
>> to not expose that to the user because they,
>> 15:11:47 their values have a meaning, that's how you round up and down
>> and how you divide the range of stuff.
>> 15:11:57 You could, it could have some of the sign that lists these
>> default things as I'm not sure they have names in them, they, they are
>> really our type four or 569.
>> 15:12:15 I'm not sure we want to refer to our.
>> 15:12:21 The standard either. Yeah, they don't have names and then we
>> have to ensure that we cover all the cases. Yeah.
>> 15:12:28 Well if those two floating point values.
>> 15:12:32 Let me ask.
>> 15:12:35 Could a user specify, I don't know what those are. Did you just
>> specify two values which would make sense, which would not make sense.
>> 15:12:43 Yes.
>> 15:12:47 I hate giving people rope to hang themselves.
>> 15:12:54 Bye.
>> 15:13:07 Here it is in the comments there the link to this thing, see
>> what this thing officially looks like, really, all the, all the statistics,
>> utilities, support these, at least.
>> 15:13:30 And
>> 15:13:30 that means ones like SAS SPS and Sr. Yeah, all of them had this.
>> 15:13:38 That kind of sets a precedent or a bit of a standard then to
>> follow.
>> 15:13:51 Except Excel.
>> 15:14:06 No, it's a little bit of a struggle for the visa I can
>> definitely see that if we follow the standard set by all these other
>> packages were at least in line with what everyone else is thinking, and it
>> does provide the flexibility here although Yes, it's
>> 15:14:19 not going to be an enumerated value it's going to break our
>> standard.
>> 15:14:24 But we can appeal to the fact that we're doing what everybody
>> else is doing the de facto standard here.
>> 15:14:42 Just as a really off the wall remark here, does anyone think
>> that it is possible, or realistic that this proposal should perhaps so mid
>> Kwan tiles in the median here for the first iteration and allow that to
>> come in the second after there's been a lot
>> 15:14:57 more time to think about it, given the trials and difficulties
>> with this.
>> 15:15:03 Or do we want to try to ship something that has that in there.
>> 15:15:11 Is there a most common one you think.
>> 15:15:16 I guess kind of what we're seeing in like sci fi here.
>> 15:15:20 And then if we want to add on the added percentiles and more
>> flexible features leaked later, but just have this first incarnation.
>> 15:15:29 Looks like guy has something he could say, yes, suddenly,
>> smaller papers get through a lot more easily than large papers.
>> 15:15:38 One approach, you could take, which we took with linear algebra
>> was to first of all, prepare a presentation in a position paper that says
>> there's a whole pile of special functions that we want to add.
>> 15:15:52 Here's a list of them. Here's the all that we're going to attack
>> this in. We're putting the easy ones first, so that we can think about the
>> harder ones whilst we're going through the easy ones, we're much more
>> likely to get time in front of lobby working
>> 15:16:06 group with a 10 page paper than with a 40 page paper. So, unless
>> they're unless there is any, you know, direct relationship between them
>> that requires any of these functions to be pulled together, then there's a
>> there's a lot of benefits and pulling the
>> 15:16:29 partners into smaller papers.
>> 15:16:27 Okay, along with kind of the indirect or promise here that they
>> are coming, so they don't give the impression that permitting that major
>> feature. Make it clear in this this first paper that those are coming.
>> 15:16:38 But there's going to be a little bit more thought about the
>> first. This is what we did within your algebra, but when I first came out
>> the linear algebra paper people said oh need solvers.
>> 15:16:48 How's the game, gave god no doubt, you know, we've never get a
>> favor out if we did that. So we have this layered approach we we start with
>> the matrix class and then we build on that and the same way you start with
>> fundamentals and say Don't worry more
>> 15:17:01 is coming. It'll be fine. reassure people.
>> 15:17:03 Okay, so this one then would look at the mean, standard
>> deviation and variance. And then the mode, the mode I think is easy enough
>> to get in here that one's not too much of a problem, but the quantum files
>> here, and we can appeal to this fact that we
>> 15:17:18 have inconsistent definitions of even what quantity is.
>> 15:17:24 There's this de facto standard that most of the statistical
>> libraries follow but Wikipedia says something else so it's not advisable to
>> push through the quantum at this point since there's just too much debate.
>> 15:17:36 But we are looking at it, we're not forgetting about it. You're
>> not leaving out this major feature that's coming in the future.
>> 15:17:47 I can deal with that.
>> 15:17:50 So it's the idea to spit it out.
>> 15:17:54 The content and media from this paper, or is it to make it.
>> 15:18:00 Did you say remove mediums well.
>> 15:18:06 Medium perhaps if there's not too much debate about that at
>> least in for for almost for sure in this sort of case, because we know it's
>> just immediately in the center their average them together, We decided we
>> give you one value back.
>> 15:18:21 It's the quantum file here and the definitions associated with
>> them that's really posing the problem.
>> 15:18:27 So you would at least for the time being have the ability to
>> compute compute a median quantum while we would say as forthcoming just
>> given the difficulties will give you a medium at least as a start.
>> 15:18:41 One could argue that if we're not ready to decide on the design
>> interface and
>> 15:18:50 requirements contracts on contracts that could influence our
>> thinking about. We can also buy things that we're talking about now like,
>> what should be returned to be the prediction should it be the value
>> 15:19:09 or not. Yeah, yeah.
>> 15:19:11 So it looks like I would I would like to tie them together.
>> Actually, I, I'm really interested in these I think they should come in as
>> soon as possible but not sooner, and not the price of the other things I
>> think, okay, so it seems like we're kind of
>> 15:19:29 in agreement that we should take out this section, it's just we
>> want to take out both Quantel and medium,
>> 15:19:39 or just leave a partial media in here like for assorted case
>> where it's very easy return an average value user has something to work
>> with until the quantities comes.
>> 15:19:51 Go ahead. Go.
>> 15:19:54 This is more of a meta point I noticed the top we've been here
>> for an hour and 20 minutes, and there is another paper that's we're
>> expected to review here.
>> 15:20:03 We should probably Larry your chair, which we do show a meeting
>> coming up soon so I think I'm.
>> 15:20:12 Since I'm giving the paper, it's not really a paper first of
>> all, I mean it's it's really a PowerPoint when I'm not even close to a
>> paper on this.
>> 15:20:23 Was it was gonna say always, always do is make sure is make sure
>> that if we continue with this we're continuing. As a matter of choice,
>> rather than by default.
>> 15:20:32 Right. So, at this point, I don't know what how do you should we
>> take a vote, I guess the proposals are.
>> 15:20:44 So, First of all the proposal to remove Quantel.
>> 15:20:49 Let's just.
>> 15:20:51 Can we take a vote. I'm not sure how to take a vote, so.
>> 15:20:56 So, this is Michael sorry I've been monitoring I've been
>> listening to the call, but now I'm back.
>> 15:21:02 I think, I don't know of a vote is needed. I think it's Richard
>> has taken all the feedback, he will go off and and make the adjustments,
>> according to what he picks out.
>> 15:21:13 Is that the case, I'll definitely be in correspondence with
>> everyone through email and mailing list I'll make Yeah, we have some input
>> for sure. Yeah, yeah.
>> 15:21:22 Yeah, yeah. So I don't think we need a boat here. Unless you
>> want one, but that's fine that that goes ahead I'll send the email but it
>> looks like at minimum, we're going to pull the quantum miles out, just give
>> me an it's not ready.
>> 15:21:26 No, no, be careful as you make the changes to the paper, because
>> you're, you're making change to a published paper, paper, you should make
>> the change to a new up the paper, a D, whatever this this one is.
>> 15:21:48 Okay, the same number, but the new revision up one, and then
>> we'll review that one. And here's the problem. When you get to LEWG which
>> paper Do you review.
>> 15:21:55 Okay.
>> 15:21:57 If there's a lot of changes here.
>> 15:22:00 Or there's only a sorry it's if there's only minor changes here,
>> then you could potentially post that paper to the group, so that they can
>> see that oh we have some, we had some late updates and we can, we would
>> rather that you review the newly updated
>> 15:22:16 paper. Okay, so hopefully that's probably the best best thing if
>> you can do it like that, if there are a lot of changes then we're going to
>> have to probably, if we can get it out in on the 15th of this month, or the
>> next month, then, then, then publish
>> 15:22:31 another paper, and that way they can always have the latest
>> paper.
>> 15:22:34 Okay, okay, okay, it's not going to be too terribly much it's
>> going to be segmenting the other algorithms into. Okay, and the iterative,
>> or input iterator and a forward iterative version, and then pulling out
>> these quantum miles here is going to be the
>> 15:22:48 big chain guys know Be careful though. Are you sure that these
>> changes are blessed by everyone and everyone will like it always, always
>> thinks that like this is what I'm changing going to increase the consensus
>> of the paper.
>> 15:23:02 Meaning, more people are going to like a more people going to
>> love it.
>> 15:23:06 If it's not clear that more people are going to love it. You
>> don't have to make the change what you can do is put it as an alternative
>> and say, oh by the way some people would like it like this.
>> 15:23:17 Okay. You can do it as a new addition as an additional
>> attendance section. So, you make the choice but be careful you don't want
>> to decrease the consensus on this paper.
>> 15:23:28 Okay, some of the issues don't like with that execution policy
>> is going to be a problem if it's just an input and radio so that exactly if
>> you think something is going to get even slightly controversial don't, you
>> don't have to.
>> 15:23:40 Don't you don't have to throw away but put it in as an attendee.
>> 15:23:43 Okay, okay. I think some of those are kind of almost mistakes
>> that need to be corrected. Okay, if there's a clear mistakes, go for it.
>> Yeah.
>> 15:23:52 Okay. So, as I understand that. I mean, this is, it's not this
>> group that writes this paper.
>> 15:23:59 It's, we are discussing feedback on the paper. Yeah, it's so
>> we're not voting on how the paper should look or anything like that.
>> 15:24:10 We still have to vote to exit the paper we did that already is.
>> Exactly. It's already done. Oh, this is just back. Yeah, yeah so and that's
>> the same so I we're not going to go through this today, I think, at least,
>> we don't have time and I don't think
>> 15:24:24 anyone has prepared for it. I have written this other feedback
>> paper. Also, which talks about the exceptions and things like that. Right.
>> But, but that is also I mean, that is that is input.
>> 15:24:53 So, whatever happened to it will happen.
>> 15:24:46 So Michael has his hand up but I will answer your question
>> first. You have published a paper about exceptions, is that a piece of
>> paper that's published.
>> 15:25:02 Now, right, it's going to be P paper tomorrow or whenever the
>> mailing is. OK, so it's going to be published this month. Right.
>> 15:25:06 Yeah, it's the 15th I think the team. Yeah, yeah it's currently
>> in SP. You want to review it here in this group.
>> 15:25:18 I don't know what what the best way is that we don't have time
>> for today I think when no no we have time.
>> 15:25:25 Okay.
>> 15:25:27 People about to publish is much more urgent than anything else
>> we have on the left. Okay, so if you have a paper that's about to go
>> public. We that that trumps everything else on the agenda.
>> 15:25:39 So, in that case we would look at that paper immediately.
>> 15:25:44 Okay.
>> 15:25:45 And that way you can get feedback from this group, and then you
>> then you can decide whether you want to go through with publishing or not.
>> 15:25:52 Okay.
>> 15:25:53 Michael, go ahead.
>> 15:25:54 Yeah, it's more of a personal preference, maybe, but the the
>> idea of having choices in the paper is good, in my opinion, but the idea of
>> having too many choices.
>> 15:26:07 I think it might be detrimental to the, to the paper so it, I, I
>> suggest a weighted so for very important decisions to to have the options
>> in the paper but not for every detail because that might result in
>> confusion, at least when I read the paper that
>> 15:26:24 has too many decisions to take. I find it confusing that I
>> cannot.
>> 15:26:32 Understood. Yeah. Yeah.
>> 15:26:36 Yeah.
>> 15:26:36 I can't believe it won't be too many choices but I just want to
>> tell which had all the options he has. But, but you're right. Don't don't
>> don't put so many choices that it becomes very confusing I find it
>> confusing to to so many choices.
>> 15:26:49 Okay, so, um, so let's take a sorry I'm just going to I'm going
>> to join back in and help chair, because I'm back.
>> 15:26:58 Thank you very much to Larry for driving us to choose.
>> 15:27:02 It was great job, absolutely fantastic given that you really
>> well you've been with us for over six months now so it's up to you. You've
>> seen enough of these.
>> 15:27:12 So I think we have a couple of things in front of us just to
>> take stock, we have the Johan paper on exceptions. We have guy Davidson was
>> going to give an update on linear algebra, I believe, and we also have the
>> reinforcement learning feedback or approach
>> 15:27:30 of these, I want to make sure we get the exception paper looked
>> at and reviewed and then whatever time we have we can do the feedback and
>> feedback or the, all the linear algebra look but if we don't have time, I
>> would relegate those to the next meeting.
>> 15:27:45 Okay, with that, would that work.
>> 15:27:50 Okay. is that okay all right guys okay Larry Are you okay with
>> that.
>> 15:27:56 Sure.
>> 15:27:57 Okay, thank you. Just high, it's just time time time time
>> management here. So with that, I would say I would like to see if I can get
>> them, Johan to show his paper and discuss it.
>> 15:28:11 Yeah.
>> 15:28:12 Let's see.
>> 15:28:16 segments.
>> 15:28:41 alright.
>> 15:28:57 Right.
>> 15:28:59 Yeah. So,
>> 15:29:02 After last time when the call I, I thought, I have trouble
>> making myself.
>> 15:29:12 Understood. So, I started to write down my thoughts instead. And
>> that went out of hand into this part too long text.
>> 15:29:27 So, it's mostly a lot of References Footnotes disguised as a
>> paper.
>> 15:29:32 But what I what I do in this paper if I, I think I can go
>> through all the cases where, where exceptions are thrown stats are
>> exception, and I compare it to other things that currently exists in.
>> 15:29:50 In, c++, and other libraries, like, especially math functions
>> and the existing math functions. And you even like mid range cases.
>> 15:30:03 For example for in their products and transform and all of those
>> we gracefully deal with empty ranges, and pretty much all the main
>> 15:30:16 means mainstream tools for statistics, either house, have a
>> special mechanism to deal with kind of missing values empty ranges, norms,
>> or things like that.
>> 15:30:29 And it's far too long to really go through, but I can, I can try
>> to to outline, why I come to the conclusions they come to in that, if you
>> looked at for example mean there's special casing on empty on some on sizes.
>> 15:30:55 There's
>> 15:30:59 Sierra weights, and so on. And all of these, I think fall into
>> categories of special types of error conditions that we already have in the
>> standard library.
>> 15:31:15 Like, whole errors, the main errors. Yes, that's we have for
>> long, and even division by zero.
>> 15:31:25 And so,
>> 15:31:31 if you look at
>> 15:31:35 this case of missing data that shows up in many cases like
>> precocious and standard deviation all of these.
>> 15:31:45 They are also, I find it much better to extend kind of input
>> domain to love them.
>> 15:31:53 And that's what most of the commercial tools and libraries do
>> not the commercial tools, and various libraries do.
>> 15:32:03 So for example, love, and stop by and all of these have some way
>> to return, but it always get the value back.
>> 15:32:14 And there's no exceptions or problems, usually in any of these
>> kinds of cases,
>> 15:32:25 Even then C sharp, those libraries use, not as a way of returning
>> 15:32:33 problematic conditions, so.
>> 15:32:48 Yeah.
>> 15:32:48 Yeah.
>> 15:32:50 And then also, if you think of
>> 15:32:55 how these things.
>> 15:32:59 If we are going to use these functions as cornerstones to or
>> building blocks for more advanced algorithms like machine learning stuff
>> for image processing or whatever.
>> 15:33:14 And there's going to be like higher order functions operating on
>> them.
>> 15:33:19 And usually mass is not expected to throw exceptions, so that
>> that is probably going to annoy a lot of people. There's also a large
>> fraction of c++ developers that don't have, except just like enabled, and I.
>> 15:33:39 There's some statistics on that, but I would assume or.
>> 15:33:46 I'm pretty sure that the people who are really doing the miracle
>> computations, have a much larger fractional.
>> 15:33:57 We probably need to disable exceptions.
>> 15:33:59 So, in addition to that, if you think about the freestanding
>> stuff, as in this, the freestanding limitation stuff.
>> 15:34:12 You don't have exceptions. And if we completely avoid exceptions
>> and do us the other libraries to return, like, Mom, or another mechanism to
>> the return missing values.
>> 15:34:26 That also allows it to be used on Google Docs or.
>> 15:34:32 Most of these kinds of things are done on GPUs.
>> 15:34:37 Now we're soon.
>> 15:34:42 Yeah, that's kind of the.
>> 15:34:49 There's one like side notes that it's interesting that many come
>> to the same conclusion us, as this paper does, which is reassuring
>> regarding how to deal with integer inputs like even like
>> 15:35:10 ups, or.
>> 15:35:14 Let's see what else I think like, even the pythons, much like
>> shows they convert into your inputs expected double what floats are kept us
>> blows.
>> 15:35:27 And I find it interesting because that's the same the same as
>> proposed in the paper.
>> 15:35:35 That's, I think the only way to kind of actually make it work.
>> But it's interesting because kind of makes it not a generic kind of thing.
>> 15:35:59 It's really kind of a special case in there extolled the work
>> within yourself.
>> 15:36:01 Yeah so
>> 15:36:04 conclusion is basically try to return. Mom, or in exactly us
>> existing math functions to go through each of the functions of specify what
>> is the safest hetero value to return in each case, for example, if you're
>> if you return, like.
>> 15:36:31 So the most common is to return nom or sample, the causes of the
>> few values and that is really.
>> 15:36:43 I mean, for example at my company we're always right, we have
>> our search, have a special rules relating to how you write your research
>> you always have to be with the possibility of Norman and the search.
>> 15:36:56 If you, If you keep things.
>> 15:37:00 You understand how to work with non, then this is extremely
>> powerful.
>> 15:37:08 Since we are only actually only working with really supporting
>> talking points.
>> 15:37:16 I think this really makes sense.
>> 15:37:24 Yeah.
>> 15:37:24 I think that's the summary of
>> 15:37:28 the paper.
>> 15:37:31 All right, questions from people.
>> 15:37:39 One of the things that we've we, in fact, A lot of things in
>> SaaS we've.
>> 15:37:49 And I've been the one to introduce c++ at the core of where SAS
>> has a lot of their analytics.
>> 15:37:59 And in fact that a part of this they do turn on the exceptions,
>> the frying pan exceptions to catch these things and it's been something
>> that we've had, you know, we're kind of in process of dealing with, I
>> think, in fact, one of the things that we've
>> 15:38:14 had to deal with is the difference between what the existing C
>> code does vs GPU code, which is just to evaluate some of these things. Some
>> of the things as a Nan within GPU because it doesn't have the concept of
>> floating point exceptions and Larry is
>> 15:38:42 not pushing on this one, a fair amount.
>> 15:38:48 pushing on this one, a fair amount. And to be able to
>> essentially, turn off the, the floating point exceptions because within the
>> seat code, what they'll do is they'll, they'll catch that and then try to
>> do something with it.
>> 15:39:02 And so I think what I'm doing is I'm
>> 15:39:08 endorsing what you're saying that we shouldn't be. And there's
>> also a little bit of a confusion between c++ exceptions and and hardware
>> exceptions. And I tend to refer to the hardware exceptions as more dealing
>> like signals or hardware signals to help
>> 15:39:31 separate the terminology between those two.
>> 15:39:39 And I don't know.
>> 15:39:42 I don't have a sense of how other companies are or what other
>> companies might do in terms of turning on the hardware exceptions to catch
>> these things.
>> 15:39:57 Do what and what are their.
>> 15:40:01 The,
>> 15:40:07 the stats exception being used, I don't recall in what cases are
>> those expecting to be thrown.
>> 15:40:17 Yeah, I can share ideas share again.
>> 15:40:22 It's really these categories, it's empty or to label data
>> 15:40:31 or coal, other kinds of it's kind of the same thing as division
>> by zero so I just clump that up as a poll error because eventually leads to
>> division by zero.
>> 15:40:45 So the sum of the weights, is equal to zero. That could either
>> be a precondition and would deal with it as other preconditions like
>> contract and that contract.
>> 15:40:58 I mean, we don't show except shows up on contracts. Usually, and.
>> 15:41:11 And then,
>> 15:41:10 yeah, so this is the domain error, like, square root of minus
>> three.
>> 15:41:17 It's matching sizes of two inputs like rates and values that is
>> also contract violation in other algorithms, I don't think it should be an
>> exception here.
>> 15:41:33 Okay.
>> 15:41:41 Yeah, go ahead. Look. Now that's it.
>> 15:41:39 I just wanted to clarify I heard two different two different
>> things.
>> 15:41:43 Phil was talking about hardware exceptions. I think the original
>> comment about not having exceptions available was with respect to compiling
>> with F no exceptions.
>> 15:41:53 Not anything At the hardware level.
>> 15:41:57 Am I right,
>> 15:42:04 there are
>> 15:42:08 there are different things.
>> 15:42:14 queued up for example. Currently there's no GPU that supports a
>> hardware exceptions. Then there. Then we have the people who turn off c++
>> exceptions but they may still have like floating point tracking stuff going
>> on, or on Windows you can turn on c++
>> 15:42:28 exceptions but still have the same mechanism similar kinds of
>> exceptions that signal out of bounds reads in the stack and stuff like
>> that. But, and then you have these, which is called.
>> 15:42:46 I mean, this math error signaling, which is math error handling.
>> 15:42:54 It's actually when describe that to see that the reference.
>> 15:42:58 Bottom well described it lists all these different kinds of
>> conditions, and you can in your implementation, decide if you want to have
>> like signaling, and how we want to possibly catch that somehow, but yeah.
>> 15:43:17 No, I understand all of that what I was referring to is your
>> original statement was that there are statistics that show that people,
>> people do not have exceptions available I thought that was in reference to
>> people using c++ exceptions not hardware level
>> 15:43:30 signal later yeah yeah that's turning off the exceptions from
>> there.
>> 15:43:34 Okay. And I don't think that's what Phil was referring to you're
>> not trying to run exceptions on the GPU or anything so, Yeah, I think we're
>> in agreement
>> 15:43:47 and guide Davidson, please.
>> 15:43:51 I'm just thinking a bit of clarification here about half no
>> exceptions. And I've been meaning to ask this for some time now. When I'm a
>> visual studio user I used to the marks official C compiler, visual c++
>> compiler.
>> 15:44:04 And when we turn off exceptions what we're actually turning off
>> is exception handling. So exceptions are thrown but they can't be caught is
>> is F no exceptions, which I presume is climate GCC difference in that way
>> does it actually forbid throwing because
>> 15:44:18 for example, all my current exception me is turned off I can
>> still throw it just caught by the.
>> 15:44:27 If the translation unit you're using has a throw it will copy it
>> will not compile.
>> 15:44:32 Right. Okay, so if you link to something that has throws, then
>> it will just, it will just terminate.
>> 15:44:40 Right, so it sort of depends on which point you're in but yes it
>> will prevent you from using throw in a translation unit where it's enabled,
>> and it will cause unexpected results Hey them to something that had.
>> 15:44:53 Okay, thanks for lunch.
>> 15:45:00 Okay.
>> 15:45:02 More questions.
>> 15:45:09 I. Are you, are we comfortable with publishing this paper so is
>> it just to make sure I understand. Let's say you're, you're adding
>> exceptions to the error handling.
>> 15:45:22 In this paper it's a friendly amendment really to the stats
>> paper.
>> 15:45:30 You could say that it's a hostile amendment, because I'm trying
>> to remove exceptions from. I'm trying to completely remove the stats that
>> are exceptional from the paper and replace it with specify the return
>> values in all cases, I think that makes a lot
>> 15:45:48 of sense. I think it would make it much more compostable you
>> would be able to write log of
>> 15:45:59 ketosis. And you don't care if it's the log or if Potosi starts
>> with us.
>> 15:46:12 That gives you some by Sierra or you will just get step number
>> if no matter what.
>> 15:46:14 So, so that I would not say it's a, it's, it's up to you to
>> decide, but it's not family, I think, Okay.
>> 15:46:25 Has Richard looks at this
>> 15:46:29 person doesn't
>> 15:46:33 or doesn't mean it's it's just off the press, so it's Yes, I
>> haven't heard any feedback and I don't think right no one else read it's
>> really.
>> 15:46:43 So what's going to happen is if we publish this, they're going
>> to basically asked for feedback from Richard, because this is really
>> against his paper.
>> 15:46:54 I think that
>> 15:46:58 if you can hold off another month, and have Richard, give
>> feedback on this.
>> 15:47:05 That would, I mean I can't stop you from publishing I think it's
>> fine but it's if you can hold off another month and wait until the next 15
>> which would be June 15, then that means that we'll have another cycle, and
>> look at this and get riches feedback,
>> 15:47:19 then we might be able to
>> 15:47:24 say that this should go. This, this, because with that then we
>> can add his feedback to the paper as well you can you can summarize this
>> feedback and the feedback from the group and add it to the paper.
>> 15:47:38 I got it totally wrong. I originally thought this was a met
>> friendly amendment, but because it's a it's a hostile amendment. Well
>> that's going to happen is they're going to come back to us and ask what did
>> you, what did you think of this.
>> 15:47:50 And if we say well we haven't had time to look at it, then we'll
>> look like we haven't done our job.
>> 15:47:56 So, I think, I mean I have, I have joined this very late so
>> that's okay yeah that's just how it is. I mean, that's just how it is. But
>> I would, I would really like to just to put it out there, because I think
>> I'm kind of done with it, and I'm not sure
>> 15:48:17 if I can practice. I mean now I have some energy and time.
>> 15:48:30 I'm not sure what happens like what right. Okay, if you put it
>> out there. I'm SG six will look at it, or while they don't actually look at
>> it because they don't have any online meetings, so they will look at it, it
>> will come back to SG 19 which is fine
>> 15:48:40 you can go ahead and publish it, which means that we will look
>> at it again next month. And with Richard here and get feedback, and there's
>> nothing there that's that's progressing to the next stage, which is also
>> fine so I think I'm fine if you want to
>> 15:48:54 publish it. I'm just saying that if you want to hold up that's
>> also fine so I want to see what guy says Go ahead.
>> 15:49:02 I just want to speak and supportive, your hands favor.
>> 15:49:06 I agree that's Richard I think Richard is is overusing
>> exceptions and the sort of way that has cancelled against in 0709.
>> 15:49:18 Setting exceptions. I think that exceptions maybe being used as
>> as yet your ancestors were pre and post conditions would be more
>> appropriate contract violation to be more appropriate, or simply undefined
>> behavior if the if the user supplies the wrong
>> 15:49:31 inputs, then we should be throwing exceptions, we should be just
>> saying that's that's on you.
>> 15:49:37 Okay, good feedback.
>> 15:49:41 I think in that case and.
>> 15:49:44 Are there any other feedback so in that case I'm going to ask
>> for vote then on this paper to go out and.
>> 15:49:52 And if it goes out that's fine because the heading says, Come to
>> SG 19. So that means that next month you have to come back anyway you're.
>> Hopefully you can, yeah.
>> 15:50:04 i.
>> 15:50:03 Yeah. To be honest, I didn't expect to be able to have it all, I
>> thought, okay, I'll maybe I'll get it off to the 15th and just have it out,
>> and then we'll see what happens.
>> 15:50:22 So, so, having the possibility to discuss it here. Let's save us
>> some time but I still actually don't know that I have written.
>> 15:50:24 Okay, good. All right.
>> 15:50:25 Mike only. Yeah, go ahead.
>> 15:50:29 Wouldn't be recycled.
>> 15:50:34 Yes, absolutely. We can start it right away. And, and it could
>> be it could be ongoing publishing this does not mean that this is a done
>> deal. It's just first iteration.
>> 15:50:47 So you've already got a number it's three p 2376 or zero, and
>> that's fine. And since you're targeting only these two groups, it means
>> that library evolution won't grab ahold of it yet, and that's that's that's
>> good, that's that's what I want.
>> 15:51:04 That's that's what I want. Exactly. That's what I want to, I
>> just want them to grab ahold of paper that that's that's, you know, so,
>> until we say that okay yeah this, we can say what are we integrated with
>> Richard style or not that's fine.
>> 15:51:15 Okay. So, are there any other discussions and questions on this,
>> we actually only got about nine minutes left so we definitely won't have
>> time to get to anything else I think I would like to just, I mean, I
>> assume, no one in here actually read it.
>> 15:51:40 Really yet, because it's just came out, maybe someone did that.
>> But
>> 15:51:53 I think I explained myself better text them dumbing
>> 15:51:45 them in a foreign language.
>> 15:51:50 So, so it's easier. Yeah, so, yeah.
>> 15:51:52 Okay, no you, you did a great job, no worries that there's some
>> procedural things that I was just trying to enlighten so.
>> 15:52:00 So what is this paper number it's p.
>> 15:52:06 272376760.
>> 15:52:13 He published
>> 15:52:16 for sg 1966 right.
>> 15:52:25 Okay.
>> 15:52:32 I just want to ask a question.
>> 15:52:36 Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, ask your question, we are insofar as
>> how this paper affects the stats paper we aren't actually therefore
>> suggesting any changes in the stats paper at this point.
>> 15:52:47 No, no.
>> 15:52:51 But there might be changes that's going to be negotiated if we
>> after our review next month.
>> 15:52:56 Okay. Yeah.
>> 15:52:58 Because that until we enact it and accept this paper we won't
>> obviously yeah yeah hmm. If I I'm I'll chat with Richard, on occasion. So
>> do you have any problem with me just giving him a heads up on this.
>> 15:53:16 Just let him know that you've got this in process, no no that's.
>> 15:53:23 It is this on mentioned on the mailing list and it's okay.
>> 15:53:30 Okay, so this is mostly.
>> 15:53:35 I'm not entirely sure this is the, we don't even if you're going
>> to, I mean we don't probably don't even need to really pull but maybe to
>> useful for you though, I think you'll find is, whether you think, I think,
>> Okay, you know what I don't have a better
>> 15:53:47 point I was going to say, move that this paper be published but
>> you know what we don't need that Paul. I think you want to get a poll how
>> many people feel that this is a good direction.
>> 15:53:57 That's that would be nice. Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely. I mean,
>> because I'm.
>> 15:54:03 I mean, just to clarify, I mean, I don't expect to write
>> anything like updates on this paper. I mean, so it's not, it's it's the
>> stats paper that promotes this old stuff right so so feedback is eventually
>> going to be.
>> 15:54:22 To do that, but I would of course want to know what you think
>> that is.
>> 15:54:27 Yes.
>> 15:54:28 So let me see if this work.
>> 15:54:35 Did you see the pole.
>> 15:54:37 Does everyone see the pole.
>> 15:54:53 I don't
>> 15:54:45 know I don't
>> 15:54:48 know you will pull away I have to do this at the launch the
>> poll. How about now. Yeah.
>> 15:55:02 It's happening.
>> 15:55:09 People are changing choices. It's cool.
>> 15:55:12 Wait, wait, I got it. Can I feel like I don't see where I vote.
>> I'm sorry.
>> 15:55:18 Oh, because no you can't vote because your hose I'm gonna make
>> you a non host, I believe.
>> 15:55:24 Okay.
>> 15:55:25 How about now can you see it. Yes. Okay, as a host I cannot
>> vote. This is the job back on this system, but I'll just add just add
>> myself in that one of the numbering system.
>> 15:55:36 so I got five out of 12 strongly for.
>> 15:55:39 Oh, is everything done, I think I can publish the results right.
>> 15:55:43 Is everybody done voting.
>> 15:55:46 Well I see the pole but when I, the submit button is grayed out.
>> Oh well, I was I voted I voted 100,000% strongly yes, even the strike guy.
>> 15:56:01 Um, are you able to show us. I'm not from mom and dad and
>> honestly Michael but I'm wondering if you're able to show us the results of
>> the poll. I'm going to try this is all an experiment you know I love
>> experiment.
>> 15:56:14 So, this is absolutely fabulous but, you know, follow me say Oh,
>> these are the results and support.
>> 15:56:19 Thank you very much. All right now going ahead and pulling and
>> let's see what happens okay guys.
>> 15:56:28 You guys see anything.
>> 15:56:31 Well, there it is. What happened, what do you see, I don't want
>> to tell me what you guys see results, 46%, probably for 38% or 15% mutual,
>> not simply begins no concern strongly against, that's what we see.
>> 15:56:47 All right.
>> 15:56:48 Get tested century.
>> 15:56:54 No more racing and no one knows what.
>> 15:57:00 Okay, so do we have to add any, any votes that wasn't cast.
>> 15:57:03 Larry said you didn't you didn't cast your vote right.
>> 15:57:07 Yes, my Submit button was great out I can't.
>> 15:57:11 Oh, it probably was because you were a co host so you casting
>> strongly for.
>> 15:57:16 I was like in the category right above strongly for okay so yeah
>> so that makes it seven out of 13.
>> 15:57:24 Yeah, we don't get to see the numbers here doing, how do how do
>> we assess consensus with numbers.
>> 15:57:36 well we don't see how many people have stained was a massive
>> post and he was absolutely you'd have tracked it right because six people
>> votes. Well seven people to strongly for five weekly for, we didn't, we
>> didn't see those numbers and you see the numbers
>> 15:57:46 what we said you don't see them. Okay, we only see this, I don't
>> I do see the numbers, and I'm going to download the results and see what
>> happens. I want to see what happens like download the results.
>> 15:57:59 We obviously can't handle the actual raw data.
>> 15:58:05 This is thrilling thrilling thrilling.
>> 15:58:08 So what I saw. How about this, I'll do this I'll do this, I'll
>> do this guy's I'll do. I'm going to I'm going to share screen.
>> 15:58:16 And this.
>> 15:58:17 That's, yes.
>> 15:58:19 Okay, this is what I see on my screen.
>> 15:58:22 You guys see this.
>> 15:58:26 No.
>> 15:58:27 Do you see the pole. No, no.
>> 15:58:31 I see that you have many tabs open.
>> 15:58:39 He's trying to read the entire internet.
>> 15:58:45 You guys and I'm not trying to impress you with the amount.
>> 15:58:51 But I think Michael, you know, probably has special ramp just
>> for the tabs.
>> 15:58:58 All right. We can't see the Paul Michael I'm sorry okay so you
>> use, somehow it's only.
>> 15:59:08 Um, yeah, so you guys only see the percentages you don't see the
>> actual numbers. Okay. That's right. Alright, that's fine. I will tell you
>> what the actual number that is I see that there's no way I can actually say
>> it so I'll put it in the chat I got
>> 15:59:18 six out of 13 but plus Larry that's seven out of 13 for strongly
>> for so the gradation is strongly for weekly for neutral strongly against
>> sorry weekly against strongly against.
>> 15:59:36 Okay.
>> 15:59:37 and the number I got was 75200. And that's out of 13 people on
>> the call. So that means how many people abstains.
>> 15:59:52 That's up to 14.
>> 15:59:54 Oh sorry that's out of 14 people yeah so everybody voted nobody
>> abstained.
>> 16:00:00 Well you'll have look Berg is here twice. Yes, I only wanted once
>> 16:00:07 that Paul was taken. Yes. Yeah.
>> 16:00:09 Okay. So, Nevertheless, this is a very strongly.
>> 16:00:14 A strong indication that a lot of people like your paper.
>> 16:00:19 Okay, it's pretty good for our first paper going good.
>> 16:00:23 Thanks.
>> 16:00:26 Well you tackled a really like graphics.
>> 16:00:35 For instance what linear algebra does because we're not the only
>> numerical algorithms in the world here right.
>> 16:00:39 So what else, What else we got any exceptions.
>> 16:00:42 It's full up. If you get it. If you get that data, it's, it's on
>> your head.
>> 16:00:48 You know so so the standard will give you as much information as
>> it possibly can about what the acceptable range of data, and what to expect
>> it, you know we we really go the extra mile.
>> 16:00:57 But if we throw exceptions, then you know that you're
>> effectively saying, Do not use this library.
>> 16:01:05 It's, you know, and I would be very sad if that happened.
>> 16:01:10 Alright guys, I think we should stop but thank you, you guys.
>> You guys have been great experimental subjects for all my little
>> experiments.
>> 16:01:23 All right, next week next week, I mean next month. We'll see you
>> guys, same place. And I think we might be back to graphs, but looks like
>> we're going to have put some, some reinforcement learning there and maybe
>> this time we can do an update, but looks
>> 16:01:38 like this, people will have.
>> 16:01:41 Well, actually we could probably wait until the time slot for
>> stats to review this paper, which will probably be the month after that so
>> I'll get all the scheduling straight.
>>
>> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:04 AM Michael Wong <fraggamuffin_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SG19 Machine Learning 2 hours. This session will focus on Reinforcement
>>> Learning and a review of Stats feedback.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Michael Wong is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
>>>
>>> Topic: SG19 monthly Dec 2020-Feb 2021
>>> Time: 02:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) 1800 UTC Stats
>>> Every month on the Second Thu,
>>> May 13, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Reinformaent Learning and Diff
>>> Calculus
>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>
>>>
>>> Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
>>> https://iso.zoom.us/j/93084591725?pwd=K3QxZjJlcnljaE13ZWU5cTlLNkx0Zz09
>>> Password: 035530
>>>
>>> Or iPhone one-tap :
>>> US: +13017158592,,93084591725# or +13126266799,,93084591725#
>>> Or Telephone:
>>> Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current
>>> location):
>>> US: +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1
>>> 408 638 0968 or +1 646 876 9923 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782
>>> or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free)
>>> Meeting ID: 930 8459 1725
>>> Password: 035530
>>> International numbers available: https://iso.zoom.us/u/agewu4X97
>>>
>>> Or Skype for Business (Lync):
>>> https://iso.zoom.us/skype/93084591725
>>>
>>> Agenda:
>>>
>>> 1. Opening and introductions
>>>
>>> The ISO Code of conduct:
>>> https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100397.pdf
>>> The IEC Code of Conduct:
>>>
>>> https://basecamp.iec.ch/download/iec-code-of-conduct-for-delegates-and-experts/
>>>
>>> ISO patent policy.
>>>
>>> https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Policy.htm?nodeid=6344764&vernum=-2
>>>
>>> The WG21 Practices and Procedures and Code of Conduct:
>>>
>>> https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-4-wg21-practices-and-procedures
>>>
>>> 1.1 Roll call of participants
>>>
>>> 1.2 Adopt agenda
>>>
>>> 1.3 Approve minutes from previous meeting, and approve publishing
>>> previously approved minutes to ISOCPP.org
>>>
>>> 1.4 Action items from previous meetings
>>>
>>> 2. Main issues (125 min)
>>>
>>> 2.1 General logistics
>>>
>>> Meeting plan, focus on one paper per meeting but does not preclude other
>>> paper updates:
>>>
>>> May 13, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Reinformaent Learning and Diff
>>> Calculus
>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>
>>> ISO meeting status
>>>
>>> future C++ Std meetings
>>>
>>> 2.2 Paper reviews
>>>
>>> 2.2.1: ML topics
>>>
>>> 2.2.1.1 Graph Proposal Phil Ratsloff et al
>>>
>>> P1709R1: Graph Proposal for Machine Learning
>>>
>>> P1709R3:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kLHhbSTX7j0tPeTYECQFSNx3R35Mu3xO5_dyYdRy4dM/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkfDzGyfNQKs86y053M0YHOLP6frzhTJqzg1Ug_vkkE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2119r0.html>
>>>
>>> <
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/175wIm8o4BNGti0WLq8U6uZORegKVjmnpfc-_E8PoGS0/edit?ts=5fff27cd#heading=h.9ogkehmdmtel
>>> >
>>>
>>> 2.2.1.2 Reinforcement Learning Larry Lewis Jorge Silva
>>>
>>> Reinforcement Learning proposal:
>>>
>>> 2.2.1.3 Differential Calculs:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/175wIm8o4BNGti0WLq8U6uZORegKVjmnpfc-_E8PoGS0/edit?ts=5fff27cd#heading=h.9ogkehmdmtel
>>>
>>> 2.2.1.4: Stats paper
>>>
>>> Current github
>>>
>>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/475
>>>
>>> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/979
>>>
>>> Stats review Richard Dosselman et al
>>>
>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p1708r4.pdf
>>>
>>> Feedback from Johan Lundberg and Oleksandr Korval
>>>
>>> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2376R0.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> P1708R3: Math proposal for Machine Learning: 3rd review
>>>
>>> PXXXX: combinatorics: 1st Review
>>>
>>> > std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1708r2
>>> > above is the stats paper that was reviewed in Prague
>>> > http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21prague/P1708R2SG19
>>> >
>>> > Review Jolanta Polish feedback.
>>> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2119r0.html
>>>
>>> 2.2.3 any other proposal for reviews?
>>>
>>> 2.3 Other Papers and proposals
>>>
>>> P1416R1: SG19 - Linear Algebra for Data Science and Machine Learning
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IKUNiUhBgRURW-UkspK7fAAyIhfXuMxjk7xKikK4Yp8/edit#heading=h.tj9hitg7dbtr
>>>
>>> P1415: Machine Learning Layered list
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1elNFdIXWoetbxjO1OKol_Wj8fyi4Z4hogfj5tLVSj64/edit#heading=h.tj9hitg7dbtr
>>>
>>> 2.2.2 SG14 Linear Algebra progress:
>>> Different layers of proposal
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poXfr7mUPovJC9ZQ5SDVM_1Nb6oYAXlK_d0ljdUAtSQ/edit
>>>
>>> 2.5 Future F2F meetings:
>>>
>>> 2.6 future C++ Standard meetings:
>>> https://isocpp.org/std/meetings-and-participation/upcoming-meetings
>>>
>>> None
>>>
>>> 3. Any other business
>>>
>>> New reflector
>>>
>>> http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>>>
>>> Old Reflector
>>> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/#!newtopic/sg19
>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/sg14>
>>>
>>> Code and proposal Staging area
>>>
>>> 4. Review
>>>
>>> 4.1 Review and approve resolutions and issues [e.g., changes to SG's
>>> working draft]
>>>
>>> 4.2 Review action items (5 min)
>>>
>>> 5. Closing process
>>>
>>> 5.1 Establish next agenda
>>>
>>> TBD
>>>
>>> 5.2 Future meeting
>>>
>>> June 10, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Graph
>>> Jul 8, 2021 02:00 PM ET 1800 UTC Stats and Combinatorics
>>>
>> --
>> SG19 mailing list
>> SG19_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>>
> --
> SG19 mailing list
> SG19_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg19
>