[Cfp-interest 1968] Numerically equal

[Fred J. Tydeman]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:45:23 -0600 Rajan Bhakta wrote:
>
>      Fred: Make a proposal for CFP 1927 with the change of the final
>change being "equal" instead of boolean and check with David H.
>

Attached (correct paper this time).

---
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.

-------------- next part --------------

   Submitter:CFP group
   Submission Date: 2021-??-??
   Document: WG14 N26??
   Title: N26??: Numerically equal
   Reference Documents:WG14 N2596, CFP 1927

   Summary: The phrases "numerically equal" and "numerically equivalent"
   are used, but never defined. Also, they seem to add no value to just
   "equal".

   These page numbers are for N2596.

   Page 449, F9.2 Expression Transformations

     x/2 <-> x * 0.5
     Although similar transformations involving inexact constants
     generally do not yield numerically equivalent expressions, ...

   should be changed to

     x/2 <-> x * 0.5
     Although similar transformations involving inexact constants
     generally do not yield [DEL: numerically :DEL] equivalent
     expressions, ...

   Page 450, paragraph 4, in the Example, change:

     The results are numerically equal, but have different quantum
     exponents, hence have different values.

   to

     The results are [DEL: numerically :DEL] equal, but have different
     quantum exponents, hence have different values.

   Page 450, F9.3 Relational operators, change:

     x < y -> isless(x,y)
     Though numerically equal, these expressions are not equivalent
     because of side effects...

   to

     x < y -> isless(x,y)
     Though [DEL: numerically :DEL] equal, these expressions are not
     equivalent because of side effects...