From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Sun Aug 10 05:27:49 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h7A3Rnwt042379 for sc22wg5-domo; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:27:49 +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 nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h7A3RbEc042374 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:27:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from corbett@mpkmail.eng.sun.com) Received: from engmail2sun.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.19]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7A3RQi0015055; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 20:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phys-mpkmaila (phys-mpkmaila.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.18.131]) by engmail2sun.Eng.Sun.COM (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id h7A3RPUu013785; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 20:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lupa (lupa.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.78.104]) by mpkmail.eng.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Apr 2 2002)) with SMTP id <0HJD006FSW9PQ1@mpkmail.eng.sun.com>; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:27:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Corbett Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2929) clarification of technical intent in N1553 To: adonev@math.princeton.edu Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Reply-to: Robert Corbett Message-id: <0HJD006FTW9PQ1@mpkmail.eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.8 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-MD5: UBh6RJA+exFNQg5bmf3Y2A== Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk > Robert Corbett wrote: > > Does it not bother the Fortran committees that they are > > approving a different syntax for reading and writing > > formatted NaN values from the syntax proposed by the > > IEEE floating-point committee? > There is still no ratified convention for this (at least there wasn't at the > last J3/WG5 meeting when this was done), and it will take the IEEE committee > entirely too long to decide the final details to wait for them. One of the > goals was to provide a lenient sent of rules that could accomodate more > strict IEEE regulations, but I cannot say if we achieved this, not having > seen the IEEE current proposal. > Aleksandar I am not certain you have not, since I have not seen the latest version of your proposed syntax. However, based on the e-mail I have seen, it does not appear you have. The IEEE proposal uses the sequence "sNaN" to indicate a signaling NaN. It used an optional `+' and a mandatory `-' to indicate the sign of the NaN. I don't think either of those parts of the IEEE proposal are part of the syntax the draft Fortran standard is using. I posted a copy of the text of the IEEE proposal for reading and writing NaNs to this mailing list when the subject first arose. AFAICT, my posting was ignored. In any case, you can find the proposal at http://754r.ucbtest.org. It is the proposal "Conversion between binary floating-point and decimal character strings." The part about reading and writing NaNs is on pages 8 and 9. Sincerely, Bob Corbett