[cfp-interest 3598] Re: Annex F Changes Discussion Paper

[Damian McGuckin]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2025, Jim Thomas wrote:

> If we change F.2.2 #3:
>
> ?? This annex does not require the full support for signaling NaNs 
> specified in ISO/IEC 60559. This annex uses the term NaN, unless 
> explicitly qualified, to denote quiet NaNs. ??
>
> to something like:
>
> ----- This annex does not require the full support for signaling NaNs 
> specified in ISO/IEC 60559. Signaling NaNs are generally excluded from 
> the specification. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, phrases such as 
> ?for all x? do not include signaling NaNs, and the term ?NaN" denotes 
> only quiet NaNs. ??
>
> then (8) could be replaced by ?all x?.
>
> The change would also give a fuller characterization of the status of 
> signaling NaNs in the annex.

Change #3 to be simply.

 	This annex uses the term NaN unless explicitly qualified, to
 	denote quiet NaNs.

Simple. Obvious. ALl be its lonesome. Really clear. This clause never 
needs to mention Signaling NaNs so it does not confuse people.

Change #5 to be more complete and talk all about Signaling NaNs (and only 
Signaling NaNs)

 	This annex does not require the full support for signaling NaN s
 	specified in ISO/IEC 60559. Where such full support is not provided,
 	the behavior of a signaling NaN is implementation-defined (either
 	treated as an ISO/IEC 60559 quiet NaN or treated as an ISO/IEC 60559
 	signaling NaN ). 433) Where such full support is provided, an
 	implementation should adhere to the following recommended practice.

I do like adding a definiting "for all ..." but I hesitated because I 
thought the standard currently uses term "for all ..." to include only 
finite and infinite values, and not qNaNs.  Talk Wednesday.

Thanks - Damian