[cfp-interest 3780] Re: Annex F 2.2#7 - Signaling NaNs as an argument

[Damian McGuckin]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2026, Jim Thomas wrote:

>       In F.10.4.19, i.e., scalbn, it says
>
>       scalbn(x, 0) returns x
>
>       Some people might think that means that given a signaling NaN
>       argument x, it should return the signaling NaN. Do we need to
>       make that definition tighter, e.g.
>
>       scalbn(x, 0) returns x for all x (including NaN)

> Yes. The change you suggest looks good.

Thanks. Not really my idea. Chalk that up to some wise words from Jerome 
which prompted me to look at emails from Tue Ly and Paul Zimmerman. I just 
joined the dots or followed the bread crumbs. Not sure which.

Thanks - Damian