From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk  Fri Aug  8 15:30:56 2003
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h78DUu0M030428
	for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:30:56 +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 inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h78DUnEc030423
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:30:51 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk)
Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23])
	by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h78DUnD28552
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:30:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202])
	by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06382
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:39:45 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <3F33A82A.4030008@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:39:54 +0100
From: John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2923) clarification of technical intent in N1553
References: <200308072303.h77N34rh026353@dkuug.dk> <200308081249.h78CnM0a030247@dkuug.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Precedence: bulk



Toon Moene wrote:
> 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.
> 
> :-(
> 
> <SPECULATION MODE=ON>
> 
> 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.

Yes, I agree. The subgroup overlooked the fact that the edit addressed 
point 4.

I suggest the following edit:

[230:32] After the "." Insert
       "If the NaN is a signaling NaN, the string 'NaN' shall be followed
        by characters enclosed in parentheses."

Cheers,

John.