[cfp-interest 3715] Re: Comments on proposal for Annex F special cases

[Damian McGuckin]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2025, Jim Thomas wrote:

> F.10.9.7#1
> The rewrite loses the requirement that the functions successfully produce a
> canonical result (for valid pointers).
> -1- The quiet NaN returned must be the canonical version of the input quiet
> NaN.
> -3- ?the canonicalized version of the signaling NaN that was made quiet? sounds
> like a signaling NaN. It's intended to be the canonical version of the quiet
> NaN resulting from quieting the signaling NaN input. 
> -3- I believe the footnote was intended to apply generally, not just to
> quieting a signaling NaN. Fred?
> -4- Because the function specification covers signaling NaNs explicitly, it
> would be better to qualify all references to ?NaN?.

After a break, I reworked this and have upated the PDF on the Wiki.

I think I have captured your comments above but please check and feel free 
to improve my changes.

I have not mentioned that the pointers must be valid as this is not done 
for either of frexp() or modf() which have a similar requirement.  If we 
need to do this, then we need to do it across the board.

Thanks - Damian