[Cfp-interest 3089] Re: csinh(0 + i NaN)

[Damian McGuckin]

I note that

 	G.6.3.1
and
 	G.6.3.3

say to return NaN + i NaN for an argument NaN + i 0

They forget that

 	G.6.4.1
and
 	G.6.4.3

define the case of

 	ccosh(NaN + i 0)
and
 	ctanh(NaN + i 0)

as returning NaN + i 0 which means that cacosh() and catanh() are 
incorrect.

I will update.

That also makes the domains more consistent and symmetric which makes 
sense.

Thanks - Damian