[Cfp-interest 1232] Re: part 3 as annex

[Fred J. Tydeman]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 16:10:14 -0800 Jim Thomas wrote:
>
>WG 14 requested we recast TS 18661-3 as a proposed annex for C2X. Here's a draft. Please review it for discussion at this coming week's CFP meeting.
>

Comments on CFP part 3 done as an annex.

Printed page 3: line 3: Are Interchange floating types compatible with
other Interchange floating types?  With themselves?  Same for line 32
and extended floating types.  Perhaps add "(except themselves).

Surprised that _Decimal32x is not required (and the same as
_Decimal64).

Printed page 7: *_EPSILON: Change "least value greater" to "least
normalized value greater".

Printed page 13, lines 18-43 versus lines 45 to 20 on next page: differences: 
_FloatN_t
coshfN
decodefN
encodefN
sinhfN
tanhfN

Printed page 15, lines 1-29 versus lines 31 to 5 on next page: differences:
_DecimalN_t
decodebindN
decodedecdN
encodebindN
encodedecdN

Printed page 17, line 13: Why 'f' and 'l' suffixes?  And types 'float'
and 'long double'?

Printed page 19, line 8:  Why 'f' and 'l' suffixes?

Printed page 20, linee 3 to 5: Why 'f' and 'l' suffixes?  And types
'float' and 'long double'?

Lines 15-16:  Why are 'float_t' and 'double_t' listed here?

Printed page 37.  I find paragraph 4 confusing.  Is lines 19 and
following, still part of paragraph 4, or a new paragraph?  If it just
about the narrower result type, then why lines 32-34 about 3 argument
functions?


---
Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
+1 (702) 608-6093      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com
Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.