[Cfp-interest] Part 1-3 drafts posted: Part 1

[Jim Thomas]

On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:01 PM, "Fred J. Tydeman" <tydeman at tybor.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:09:42 -0700 Jim Thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> PDF page 26, lines 26-28: Do we want SNANF32, SNANF64, SNANF80 (or
>>> SNANF64X), SNANF128?
>> 
>> No. For example, SNANF and Part 3's SNANF32 have different types.
> 
> Part 3, PDF page 8, last paragraph mentions redundant ways to
> refer to the same format.  So, I am somewhat confused.

"This specification incudes interchange and extended nomenclatures for types that, in some cases, already have C nomenclatures" needs to be changed. The different nomenclature are for different types, even if the formats are the same.
 

> 
> Part 3, PDF page 10, ISSUE 2 mentions that Part 1 5.1 should be
> split to match Part 3.  Seems like now would be a good time to
> do that.

Right, except we can't change the document because it's in WG 14 review.

-Jim

> 
> ---
> Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
> tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
> +1 (775) 287-5904      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
> Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com
> Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20130320/c34f83bc/attachment.html