[Cfp-interest 1613] Re: TS3 annex review

[Jim Thomas]

Thanks, Damian.

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 6:36 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm at esi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> I was given X.9 and X.10 (I think I got the easy stuff)
> 
> X.9 - At the end of this section on Page 14, clause [4] ...
> 
> 	[4] For the functions listed in 7.31.1 (Future library directions
> 	for <complex.h>), the possible suffixes are expanded to also
> 	include fN and fNx
> 
> I do not understand the exact purpose of what is in brackets.  It reads poorly either way.
I agree it doesn’t read well. How about:

[4] For the functions listed in “future library directions" for <complex.h> (7.31.1), the suffixes …”.

> 
> X.10 - Top of Page 15 - first sentence of Clause [3].
> 
> [3] Both the dynamic rounding direction mode accessed by fegetround and fesetround and the FENV_ROUND rounding control pragma apply to operations for binary floating types, as well for standard floating types, and to conversions for radix-2 non-arithmetic interchange formats.
> 
> Can I suggest 'as well as' in the sentence. I use Strunk & White "Elements of Style" as my English style bible/guide even though Strunk is from Yale. He only ever uses "as well" without a trailing "as" when it appears at the end of a sentence. Within a sentence, there is always the trailing "as".

Right. The “as” was intended.
> 
> I would prefer an 'ALSO' to apply to the conversions as I suggest below but I am not overly fussed on that point.
> 
> So, this first sentence becomes
> 
> [3] Both the dynamic rounding direction mode accessed by fegetround and fesetround and the FENV_ROUND rounding control pragma apply to operations for binary floating types, as well AS for standard floating types, and ALSO to conversions for radix-2 non-arithmetic interchange formats.
Yes, that’s better.
> 
> Obviously no capitalization.
> 
> You could also simplify it to say
> 
> [3] Both the dynamic rounding direction mode accessed by fegetround and fesetround and the FENV_ROUND rounding control pragma apply to operations for standard floating types, binary floating types, and conversions for radix-2 non-arithmetic interchange formats.
> 
> For a standard, that simplification should be sufficient but the earlier
> version better highlights the changes.
> 
> I am unsure of the emphasis needed.
I think the former is more in the style of Annex X.

- Jim Thomas

> 
> Regards - Damian
> 
> Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
> Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
> Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer