[cfp-interest 3847] Re: Annex F - Special Cases & Introduction - Updates against latest C2Y

[Damian McGuckin]

On Fri, 3 Apr 2026, Damian McGuckin wrote:

>>  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

It is C2Y's convention of the unqualified NaN being a quiet NaN.

>>  not explicitly exclude it. It?s ironic that we?re excluding signaling NaNs
>>  by adding ?including NaN? ...

We could also say

 	all x (excluding a signaling NaN)

and explain that phrase into F.2.2. What do you think?

>>  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.

Done.

Thanks - Damian