[Cfp-interest 2171] AI about new wording for unaccepted change

[Jim Thomas]

Action item:

>     Jim: Propose new wording for N2716's change that WG14 did not accept as is.
> 


The suggested change in question is:

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 equal, but have different quantum exponents, hence have different values.

The immediately preceding text is:

3 For expressions of decimal floating types, transformations must preserve quantum exponents, as well as numerical values (5.2.4.2.3). 

4 EXAMPLE 1. × x → x is valid for decimal floating-point expressions x, but 1.0 × x → x is not: 
1. × 12.34 = (+1, 1, 0) × (+1, 1234, −2) = (+1, 1234, −2) = 12.34 
1.0 × 12.34 = (+1, 10, −1) × (+1, 1234, −2) = (+1, 12340, −3) = 12.340

A minimal change that responds to the reported WG14 discussion [Cfp-interest 2128] would be:

a) The results compare equal, but have different quantum exponents, hence have different values.

However, we haven’t used “compare equal” in the subclauses. I think a more direct statement would be:

b) The results are not equivalent because they have different quantum exponents.


Please let me know ASAP if you prefer a) or b) or something else.

- Jim Thomas




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20210930/fee0f2fe/attachment-0001.htm>