From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Mar 26 15:06:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id CDA7BD84A5; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:06:48 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from oin.rl.ac.uk (oin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.200]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169CF3850A for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:06:29 +0100 (CET) X-RAL-MFrom: X-RAL-Connect: Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by oin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2QE6LQK009893 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:06:21 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2QE6LJV008726; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:06:21 GMT Message-ID: <47EA585C.3030409@rl.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:06:20 +0000 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060209 Fedora/1.7.12-1.1.2.legacy X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3557) (j3.2006) Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0 : X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk ------- Forwarded message ------- On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:29:53 +0900, Jim Xia wrote: > NO vote on F03/0100 > The second edit says that if is zero, then the output field for NaN > values is 'NaN'. This seems to be too restrictive. Processors should be > given options for additional information in the output, e.g. a processor > can > provide additional information to specify whether a NaN is quiet NaN or > signaling NaN. Malcolm says: This argument is without merit. w==0 is "minimal field width", and explicitly prohibits inclusion of optional information (such as optional plus signs and leading zeroes). If w==3 produces "NaN" and not "***", then w==0 producing anything longer than 3 is, by definition, NOT minimal. I quote from the standard "On output, with ... F editing, the specified value of the field width may be zero. In such case, the processor selects the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ a field filled with asterisks." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jim's suggestion is contradicted both by the letter and the spirit of the minimal width editing feature in the standard. Cheers, -- ................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)