[Cfp-interest 3124] WG14 meeting CFP update #2

[Rajan Bhakta]

Updates from today’s session added in red.

Here are the results of our (CFP) paper presentations. Vote totals are (For/Against/Abstain).

Round-trip rounding [N3232] – Integrate into C2Y (21/0/2. Consensus.)
Recommendation for printf rounding [N3233] – Integrate into C2Y (20/0/2. Consensus.)
                Comments of interest:
  Seacord: Can you use "should" there or anywhere meaning recommended practice?
    (Answered: I think it’s OK, editor can change if needed.)
  Bazley: How hard is it to do, and what do current implementations do?
    (Answered: Don’t know, but assuming most do it “right” if any do more digits, and don’t know of any implementations that do it “wrong”.)
  Niall: If you change how it is printed, won't this break a lot of code?
    (Answered: No, this is more like a bug fix. And it is recommended practice so no one has to do it.)
Problematic use of “correctly rounded” [N3242] – Integrate into C2Y (18/0/5. Consensus.)

And the ones of interest to us:
Remove imaginary types [N3240] – Remove from C2Y (15/2/6. Consensus.); Remove __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ (10/4/9. Consensus.); Fix up paragraphs from the removal (18/1/3. Consensus.)
Interesting (to me) points:
  Using N3263, Ted Johnson from HP came and said HP-UX is old and not being developed so not a big deal if it is removed.
  Thoughts of moving parts of Annex G into the main standard that fit there (not IEEE dependent).
  Fred mentioned EDG has imaginary types in it’s front end.
  Reworking I meaning _Complex_I into also allowing an implementation defined complex i. (Ongoing, homework for this week)
Introduce complex literals [N3241] – Add suffixes (3/9/13. No consensus.); Have ‘j’ form too (8/8/9. No consensus.); Only have ‘i’ form (4/10/10. No consensus.); Only have 'i' form and capitals (7/8/9. No consensus.)

Interesting (to me) points:
                  Many don’t like the J suffix.
                  Many don’t like restricting mixed case.
                  Many don’t like list of suffixes (“making a combinatorial form is better”).
                  Did not discuss the macros (creal, etc.).

Possible work items for us if we want to pick it up:
  Opinion poll: Make the changes to Annex G to make it stand alone optional support for IEEE complex conformance?
    14/1/7. Consensus for someone to do something here (CFP?).
  Opinion poll: Make a purely optional annex for _Imaginary type support alone?
    8/7/7. No clear direction to do this.
   Ballman: I would have voted yes if this were for a TS. (Also Jakub said the same thing and possibly others who voted no/abstain).

Regards,

Rajan Bhakta

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20240613/4e632ee8/attachment-0001.htm>