From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Feb 10 09:40:27 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id CC0ECC178DF; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:40:27 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29782C178DC for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:40:24 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:49995) by ppsw-6.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1Nf87R-0000IP-Jc (Exim 4.70) (return-path ); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:40:21 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1Nf87R-00076C-2B (Exim 4.67) (return-path ); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:40:21 +0000 Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 10 Feb 2010 08:40:21 +0000 Date: 10 Feb 2010 08:40:21 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: longb@cray.com Cc: "John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk" , fortran standards email list for J3 , WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4170) (j3.2006) Urgent: letter ballot on interps Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100210005356.4ABF5C3BA23@www2.open-std.org> References: <20100201122928.54FB8C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20100210005356.4ABF5C3BA23@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Feb 10 2010, Bill Long wrote: > >Comment for F03/0039 - HYPOT() > >Nick's comments about the IEEE nonconformance of the proposed change >might be considered for 13.7.69 "HYPOT (X, Y)" in F08 >09-007r3[353:18-27]. The HYPOT defined in Note 14.7 is not really >claimed to be the official IEEE HYPOT, but rather is a contrivance to >illustrate the setting and getting of IEEE flags. Ah! That confused me. >would result in a NaN result. It might also make Fred Tydeman happier >if the Note pointed out that the example is not an implementation of >the IEEE HYPOT function (at least it's not a valid one). I believe >that Fred (and maybe Nick) would be happy of the name of the function >were something other than HYPOT, to avoid confusion with the IEEE >HYPOT function. It would assuredly be less confusing. On the F2008 point, I don't approve of IEEE's inconsistent approach to NaNs, but this is one of the less problematic cases, and there needs to be very strong reason to be incompatible with its explicit wording. Regards, Nick.