[Cfp-interest 2504] Re: DFP < imaginary

[Jim Thomas]

> On Aug 4, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Fred J. Tydeman <tydeman at tybor.com> wrote:
> 
> What is the reason that
>  DFP  < imaginary
> is valid,

It not. It’s a constraint violation (6.5.8#2).

> while
>  DFP + imaginary 
> is a constraint violation?
> 
> Is page 85, 6.5.8  Relational operators, #3
> missing:
> "complex type, or imaginary type."

No. It’s covered by the constraint that “both operands have real type”.

- Jim Thomas

> 
> ---
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest