[PRE REVIEW]: MicroFloatingPoints.jl: providing very small IEEE 754-compliant floating-point types

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@goualard-f<!--end-author-handle-- (Frederic Goualard) Repository: https://github.com/goualard-f/MicroFloatingPoints.jl.git Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss2024 Version: v1.5.2 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @matbesancon, @dannys4, @mkitti Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7808ee8a0f10324034b222a79cf48c0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7808ee8a0f10324034b222a79cf48c0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7808ee8a0f10324034b222a79cf48c0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e7808ee8a0f10324034b222a79cf48c0)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @goualard-f. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@goualard-f if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/221332.221334 is OK
- 10.1145/2785965 is OK
- 10.1145/3368086 is OK
- 10.1137/19M1251308 is OK
- 10.1007/11787006_1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-50417-5_2 is OK
- 10.1145/3585515 is OK
- 10.1145/2382196.2382264 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2023.1099510 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/arith.2013.22 may be a valid DOI for title: SIPE: Small Integer Plus Exponent
- No DOI given, and none found for title: tkgunaratne/BFloat.jl

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.03 s (1386.5 files/s, 149742.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           29            385            798           1397
SVG                              2              1             28           1100
Markdown                         7            257              0            734
TeX                              1             19              0            154
YAML                             4              3              4             59
TOML                             3              3              0             26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            46            668            830           3470
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    59  Frédéric Goualard
     1  Frédéric GOUALARD

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 610

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

SyntheticEddyMethod.jl: A Julia package for the creation of inlet flow conditions for LES Submitting author: @carlodev Handling editor: @philipcardiff (Active) Reviewers: @atzberg, @akshaysridhar Similarity score: 0.6720

GaussianRandomFields.jl: A Julia package to generate and sample from Gaussian random fields Submitting author: @PieterjanRobbe Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active) Reviewers: @ziyiyin97, @shahmoradi Similarity score: 0.6666

TaylorSeries.jl: Taylor expansions in one and several variables in Julia Submitting author: @lbenet Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @sriharikrishna, @tobydriscoll Similarity score: 0.6636

Φ-ML: Intuitive Scientific Computing with Dimension Types for Jax, PyTorch, TensorFlow & NumPy Submitting author: @holl- Handling editor: @mstimberg (Active) Reviewers: @wandeln, @chaoming0625, @gauravbokil8 Similarity score: 0.6630

MLJ: A Julia package for composable machine learning Submitting author: @ablaom Handling editor: @terrytangyuan (Retired) Reviewers: @degleris1, @henrykironde Similarity score: 0.6614

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[danielskatz]

👋 @goualard-f - Thanks for your submission. While we get started, you could work on the missing DOI that editorialbot suggests, which appears to me to be correct. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

Additionally, I see a bunch of extra {}s in your bib file which are preserving cases, but these should be determined by the paper generator, not fixed (unless needed, such as for proper names). Can you remove the extra {}s?

[danielskatz]

Also, the image/badge at the end of your readme related to code coverage doesn't seem to be working

[danielskatz]

Finally, please suggest 4 or 5 potential reviewers. You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission, or suggest people outside the JOSS reviewer database. If you know their GItHub usernames, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @).

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[goualard-f]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/221332.221334 is OK
- 10.1109/ARITH.2013.22 is OK
- 10.1145/2785965 is OK
- 10.1145/3368086 is OK
- 10.1137/19M1251308 is OK
- 10.1007/11787006_1 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-50417-5_2 is OK
- 10.1145/3585515 is OK
- 10.1145/2382196.2382264 is OK
- 10.3389/fninf.2023.1099510 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: tkgunaratne/BFloat.jl

INVALID DOIs

- None

[goualard-f]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[goualard-f]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @goualard-f, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

SyntheticEddyMethod.jl: A Julia package for the creation of inlet flow conditions for LES Submitting author: @carlodev Handling editor: @philipcardiff (Active) Reviewers: @atzberg, @akshaysridhar Similarity score: 0.6819

GaussianRandomFields.jl: A Julia package to generate and sample from Gaussian random fields Submitting author: @PieterjanRobbe Handling editor: @jbytecode (Active) Reviewers: @ziyiyin97, @shahmoradi Similarity score: 0.6814

TaylorSeries.jl: Taylor expansions in one and several variables in Julia Submitting author: @lbenet Handling editor: @jedbrown (Active) Reviewers: @sriharikrishna, @tobydriscoll Similarity score: 0.6749

OpenGeoSysUncertaintyQuantification.jl: a Julia library implementing an uncertainty quantification toolbox for OpenGeoSys Submitting author: @baxmittens Handling editor: @kanishkan91 (Active) Reviewers: @ziyiyin97, @dannys4 Similarity score: 0.6727

MLJ: A Julia package for composable machine learning Submitting author: @ablaom Handling editor: @terrytangyuan (Retired) Reviewers: @degleris1, @henrykironde Similarity score: 0.6701

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[goualard-f]

Possible reviewers:

• lucaferranti
• dannys4
• matt-graham
• matbesancon
• atzberg
• sandreza

[danielskatz]

👋 @dannys4 & @matbesancon - would one or both of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[danielskatz]

👋 @sandreza - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[matbesancon]

Hi @danielskatz, I can review this paper

[matbesancon]

although one thing to note: I'm not a numerical analysis person so I won't be able to judge the package or contribution in that regard

[dannys4]

I can also volunteer as well

[danielskatz]

@matbesancon & @dannys4 - thanks for agreeing to review this. I'll add you both now, and also see if I can find one other person given @matbesancon's comment about the NA part. Then we'll start the review, hopefully quite soon

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @matbesancon as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@matbesancon added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @dannys4 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@dannys4 added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @mkitti - would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[danielskatz]

@goualard-f - you might want to add a reference to Julia somewhere in the paper

@article{julia,
  doi       = {10.1137/141000671},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.1137%2F141000671},
  year      = 2017,
  month     = {jan},
  publisher = {Society for Industrial {\&} Applied Mathematics ({SIAM})},
  volume    = {59},
  number    = {1},
  pages     = {65--98},
  author    = {Jeff Bezanson and Alan Edelman and Stefan Karpinski and Viral B. Shah},
  title     = {Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing},
  journal   = {{SIAM} Review}
} 

[mkitti]

@danielskatz I would be interested in reviewing. I see there are already two reviewers here. As a third reviewer is there a particular gap that needs to be covered.

[danielskatz]

@mkitti - I was looking for a third reviewer because of the comment from @matbesancon

although one thing to note: I'm not a numerical analysis person so I won't be able to judge the package or contribution in that regard

and you were suggested to me as having a good background in Julia and in CS in general

[mkitti]

I will review, focusing on numerical analysis then. Thank you for clarifying.

[danielskatz]

Thanks very much @mkitti - I'll add you and start the review

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @mkitti as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mkitti added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7050.