[Cfp-interest 3082] Re: csinh(x + i y) - G.6.3.5 - 5th bullet point of special cases

[Damian McGuckin]

The domain for

 	csinh(x + i INF)

is written to exploit the fact that the function is odd. It says

 	positive finite x

It could have ignored the fact that the function is odd and said

 	finite non-zero

The fact that the function is odd is ignored for the domain for

 	csinh(x + i NaN)
and
 	ctanh(x + i INF)
and
 	ctanh(x + i NAN)

which return the same result, NaN + i NaN

They ignore the fact that the function is odd and say

 	finite non-zero x

Should things be consistent?

I think we should exploit the fact that the function is odd but I am easy 
either way. But I think consistency should be pursued. I have not gone 
through all thororoughly but it seems to ignore that fact more often 
than it exploits it.

Either way, these four cases jumped out at me.

Not that the ordering of the first six cases for ccosh() and csinh() agree 
but they are then inconsistent with the 4th and 5th points of ctanh().

Do you agree that they need to be swapped?

I have a summary almost done but the above inconsistencies need to be 
addressed.

Thanks - Damian