[Cfp-interest 3220] Re: Various Updates to Annex F+G

[Damian McGuckin]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Jim Thomas wrote:

>>> Note that in G.4.2.1 in the bullet
>>>
>>>      cacos(+/-inf + I NaN) returns NaN +/- i inf (where the sign of
>>>      the imaginary part of the result is unspecified).
>>
>>> The parentheses need to be removed. Unlike for other cases mentioning 
>>> that the sign of a real or imaginary part is unspecified, here the 
>>> parenthesized information is not implied by the general specification 
>>> in G.4.1 "Unless otherwise specified, where the symbol +/- occurs in 
>>> both an argument and the result, the result has the same sign as the 
>>> argument.? The parenthesized information in the bullet above is 
>>> intended to be normative specification. This is a (minor but) 
>>> technical issue
>>
>> I have corrected this in the latest version (which I recently posted) 
>> by having two separate cases:
>>
>> 	cacos(+inf + i NaN)
>> and
>> 	cacos(-inf + i NaN)
>>
>> So the use of parentheses around normative behaviour is now correct. I 
>> made this change once I fully understood your explanation of normative 
>> text.
>
> Is this the only technical change we?ve identified so far?

Yes. Now that I better understand what editorial means, I would agree that 
seems the rest are editorial.

Thanks - Damian

Pacific Engineering Systems International ..... 20D Grose St, Glebe NSW 2037
Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer