[Cfp-interest 3233] Re: Various Updates to Annex F+G

[Jim Thomas]

> On Aug 20, 2024, at 5:05 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm at esi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024, Jim Thomas wrote:
> 
>> I believe the parts ?For Consistency Between F+G? need to be reviewed together.
> 
> So, is this small breakdown of F.10.1 and G.4.1 OK, or do you want me to itemize and compare paragraph by paragraph so it is more obvious what I was trying to achieve.
> 
> Once you have that consistency, it makes it easier to read.
> 
> And both F.10.1 and G.4.1 have virtually no mathematics in them so they make easier reading.
> 
>> But you might consider separating out other parts. That way CFP could have agenda slots for focused discussion of the separate parts.
> 
> I will. But I was trying to get these first two chunk right first before I attacked the others.

I meant to suggest you might separate out the parts of c26-afg-mods-intro-01.pdf that are not "For Consistency Between F+G”. 

> 
>> Keeping it all together (as is) should suffice for getting an initial round of review and comments from CFP. Then we could have an agenda slot to start through comments.
> 
> I was probably going to keep the special cases together for now and let CFP decide on how to break those down into small chunks.

That’s fine. I meant “all” to refer just to the content of c26-afg-mods-intro-01.pdf. 

- Jim

> They are changes that follow that syntax of
> 
>     <function-name> ( <arguments> )
>     [ STORES <value-expression> INTO <pointer-name> ]
>     [ RETURNS <result> [ FOR <domain> ] [ ( <comment> ) ] ]
>     [ [optionally] RAISES <exception> [ WHEN <scenario> ] ]
> 
> By the way, that syntax is not mine. Except for the WHEN clause (which is introduced to handle that case in 'nextafter') and the fact that the domain (FOR clause) appears before the exception (RAISES clause), the above syntax is a just distillation of the syntax that currently occurs most commonly throughout Annex F and Annex G. So, it is not something new. That syntax was already there. It was just not obeyed all the time. All I am doing is forcing every special case to follow the same rule. That way, the reader does not have to worry about whether they are interpreting subtle variants the right way.
> 
> Thanks for looking at it - Damian