[Cfp-interest 3276] Re: _Complex_I

[Damian McGuckin]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024, Jim Thomas wrote:

> This doesn?t specify the sign of the 0 real part of _Complex_I. The 
> footnote doesn?t help (even if made normative) because it pertains to a 
> mathematical system without signed zeros. Reference to the imaginary 
> unit isn?t needed here, and the term isn?t used elsewhere. More direct 
> would be
>
>       ? the macro _Complex_I expands to an arithmetic constant
>       expression of type float _Complex with the real part having the
>       value +0 or unsigned 0 and the imaginary part having the value
>       1.
> 
> Footnote 227 should be removed from here. A definition of I could be
> included with an explanation of the mathematical expression a + I b (see
> [Cfp-interest 3262]).

All sounds good to me.

Thanks - Damian