From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Aug 8 14:49:21 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h78CnLBR030236 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:49:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from book.moene.indiv.nluug.nl (mail.moene.indiv.nluug.nl [195.109.255.217]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h78CmxEc030229 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:49:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl) Received: from local ([127.0.0.1] helo=moene.indiv.nluug.nl) by book.moene.indiv.nluug.nl with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19l6hO-0007t1-00; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:50:26 +0200 Message-ID: <3F339C6F.3070007@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:49:51 +0200 From: Toon Moene Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020622 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Maine CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2922) clarification of technical intent in N1553 References: <200308072303.h77N34rh026353@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Richard Maine wrote: > N1553 > > It was not clear to me whether the failure of N1553 to address > point 4 of N1532 was intentional or accidental. The > replacement edits given in N1553 did not include anything to > correspond to the [231:32] edit of N1532. The edit in N1532 > would need to be reworded in order to accomodate the decisions > made in N1532, but this rewording would not be difficult. As > is, point 4 of N1532 remains unaddressed; we specify that an > input field with nothing after the NaN is a quiet NaN, but we > don't specify that a quiet NaN produces this as an output. > N1553 gives no reason for disagreeing with this point of > N1532, so I am suspicious that the failure to address it was > accidental. If we do intent this asymmetry, I'd at least > suggest a note pointing it out, because otherwise it will be > confusing (and likely generate an interp request). > My notes don't help much here: [231:32] Take it out. :-( The main part of our "decision" was that we wouldn't want to allow *no* characters within the parentheses. I think that's the reason we wanted to take out [231:32] After the . insert "If the NaN is a quiet NaN, there shall be no characters within the optional parentheses." (Note that the actual place of this edit should be [230:32]) We didn't consider the asymmetry between input and output of quiet NaNs, as far as I can remember. Cheers, -- Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc-g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)