[cfp-interest 3845] Re: Annex F - Special Cases & Introduction - Updates against latest C2Y

[Jim Thomas]

Below are some comments about the introductory part of SpecialCases V52 April 1.

- Jim Thomas


Throughout, verb tenses are mixed when referring to the current draft and the suggested changes. Suggest: Use present tense for current draft and refer to suggested changes as “suggested” (either explicitly or by context).

“A phrase or sentence with the same mathematical meaning is often written differently.” I don’t think this says what you mean. Maybe: “The same mathematical meaning is often expressed with different wording.”

Suggest: Avoid “standardize”. I think that should refer to incorporating syntax or semantics into the standard. After the given definition it’s only used once, in the next sentence.

What does “tighter” mean? Suggest delete.

“expression, Where” -> “expression. Where”

“Where there are two tightly related special cases, one odd and the other even, the domains always appear in that order.” I don’t think a reader could know what this means without context. Suggest delete.

“less impactful consistencies” -> “less impactful inconsistencies”?

Phrases like “what should be”, “often to the point of confusion”, “much clearer”, “the confusing issues”, and “impactful” seem like judgement or speculation, since no evidence is given of users being confused or impacted.

“The elimination of current rounding direction has required several kinds of changes. For now, those changes are in Annex F.” Suggest: “This proposal eliminates use of the term current rounding direction from Annex F.” 

The part in Rationale about current rounding direction is the only actual background item. Suggest combining Background and Rationale into Background/Rationale or Introduction.

“The special case” -> “A special case”.

Suggest: “A signaling NaN input to scalbn() in F.10.4.19 mistakenly infers that a signaling NaN input needs …” -> “F.10.4.19 mistakenly implies that a signaling NaN input to scalbn needs …”.

“Behaviour” -> “behavior”

Suggest: “i.e. that a quiet NaN be returned for signaling NaN input, the scenario now inferred by the revised F.10.4.19 which explicitly excludes signaling NaN input” -> “i.e. that a quiet NaN be returned for signaling NaN input, which can now be inferred by the revised F.10.4.19”.

“for all x (including NaN)” does not include signaling NaN input (given our convention for the meaning of unqualified “NaN” in Annex F), but does not explicitly exclude it. It’s ironic that we’re excluding signaling NaNs by adding “including NaN” ...

I hate to bring this up, but maybe for these special cases we should consider changing all “(including NaN)” to “(including quiet NaN)”. There are only six cases.







> On Mar 31, 2026, at 4:52 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm at esi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> In light of the release of N3854.pdf, the latest revision of C2Y, which is now on the Wiki (thanks Jim), the latest revisions of our Annex F changes to match that new revision have now been uploaded:
> 
>   https://cfp-wiki.esi.com.au/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2Y-F-Introduction-20260401.pdf
> 
>   https://cfp-wiki.esi.com.au/pub/CFP/WebHome/C2Y-F-SpecialCases-20260401.pdf
> 
> There were some page numbers and footnote number that needed to change,
> 
> There are 4 pages of changes in the first and 12 pages in the last.
> 
> Comments please - Damian
> _______________________________________________
> cfp-interest mailing list
> cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest