Add decorations for reverse functions

[krish8484]

No description provided.

[krish8484]

ITF1788 Tests
Master

> julia> @test cosh_rev(Interval(0x1.8b07551d9f55p+0, 0x1.89bca168970c6p+432), Interval(-Inf, 0.0))[2] == Interval(-0x1.2c903022dd7abp+8, -0x1.fffffffffffffp-1)    
> Test Failed at REPL[4]:1
>   Expression: (cosh_rev(Interval(1.5430806348152437, 1.705784684221514e130), Interval(-Inf, 0.0)))[2] == Interval(-300.5632345000001, -0.9999999999999999)
>    Evaluated: ∅ == [-300.564, -0.999999]
> ERROR: There was an error during testing

Branch

> julia> @test cosh_rev(Interval(0x1.8b07551d9f55p+0, 0x1.89bca168970c6p+432), Interval(-Inf, 0.0))[2] == Interval(-0x1.2c903022dd7abp+8, -0x1.fffffffffffffp-1)    
> Test Passed

[krish8484]

ITF1788 Test

Master

> julia> @test mul_rev_IEEE1788(Interval(0.0, 1.1), Interval(0.0, 0.12)) == entireinterval(Float64)
Error During Test at REPL[4]:1
  Test threw exception
  Expression: mul_rev_IEEE1788(Interval(0.0, 1.1), Interval(0.0, 0.12)) == entireinterval(Float64)
  MethodError: no method matching mul_rev_IEEE1788(::Interval{Float64}, ::Interval{Float64})
  Closest candidates are:
    mul_rev_IEEE1788(::Any, ::Any, !Matched::Any) at C:\Users\ASUS\.julia\dev\IntervalContractors\src\arithmetic.jl:205
  Stacktrace:
   [1] top-level scope at REPL[4]:1
   [2] eval(::Module, ::Any) at .\boot.jl:330
   [3] eval_user_input(::Any, ::REPL.REPLBackend) at D:\buildbot\worker\package_win64\build\usr\share\julia\stdlib\v1.3\REPL\src\REPL.jl:86
   [4] macro expansion at D:\buildbot\worker\package_win64\build\usr\share\julia\stdlib\v1.3\REPL\src\REPL.jl:118 [inlined]
   [5] (::REPL.var"26#27"{REPL.REPLBackend})() at .\task.jl:333
ERROR: There was an error during testing

Branch

> julia> @test mul_rev_IEEE1788(Interval(0.0, 1.1), Interval(0.0, 0.12)) == entireinterval(Float64)
Test Passed

[dpsanders]

I think we should use interval(xx) instead of interval_part.
This should be changed in IntervalArithmetic.

[krish8484]

Okay, I will make a PR in IntervalArithmetic.jl addressing this

[dpsanders]

Can't this just be included in the previous piece of code?

[krish8484]

Then we will need a separate tuple especially for mul_rev_IEEE1788 because this function is not accepting single intervals as input like other functions in the tuple reverse_functions.

[dpsanders]

Why is isapprox being used here? We should be testing equality I think?

[krish8484]

These tests were not added by me, I have only edited them to return negative values as well.
Should I replace isapprox too?

[lucaferranti]

supesed by #49