[Cfp-interest 1833] Re: pow() and signaling NaN

[Damian McGuckin]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Jim Thomas wrote:

> I believe what you?re asking is if we could explicitly say ?quiet NaN? 
> wherever we now say ?NaN? under the scope of the general statement in 
> F.2.1 #3. If CFP wants to pursue this, someone could go through Annex F 
> and list where the changes would need to occur.

I can do this if anybody thinks this useful.

I was more wondering whether the background for the different editorial 
approaches and whether that gave us guidance in addressing the subject of 
the original email.  I was not thinking in more general terms.

I find I go for perioda where the only document to which I refer is the 
IEEE-754 document.  Then I go through another period where I refer to only 
the C standard. And I find that I then stab myself in the back. A more 
consistent editorial approach makes sense to me. But maybe I just need to 
get my own act together.

My 2c - 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