From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Aug 15 06:23:55 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h7F4NtiJ076492 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:23:55 +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-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h7F4NlEc076487 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:23:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from corbett@mpkmail.eng.sun.com) Received: from engmail1mpk.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.11.21]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7F4NfjL000900; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phys-mpkmaila (phys-mpkmaila.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.18.131]) by engmail1mpk.Eng.Sun.COM (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id h7F4NfV7015795; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:23:41 -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 <0HJN003MK87GXJ@mpkmail.eng.sun.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:23:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Corbett Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2936) clarification of technical intent in N1553 To: malcolm@nag.co.uk Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Reply-to: Robert Corbett Message-id: <0HJN003MP87HXJ@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: 7LKQkg8sqrueMF39MSnNLw== Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk > > No, because there is no such syntax. > > > > At the time of the last meeting, the proposal for formatting NaN values > > in strings had the status of "not discussed by the IEEE committee", i.e. > > someone had sent it in but it had not even been discussed, let alone > > decided upon. > > If you read the change log in the proposal, you will find that the > proposal has been considered by the committee. The part about > reading and writing NaNs was proposed in November and agreed on > Feb. 12. On rereading the change log, I see that I was mistaken regarding what it said was accepted. Sincerely, Bob Corbett