<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes, since I didn't see anywhere where
we prohibit the pragma or suffix, you can still have them and be in compliance
with the TS part 2.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This is obviously my preferred approach.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
<br>
Rajan Bhakta<br>
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada<br>
C Compiler Development<br>
Contact: rbhakta@ca.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM<br>
Telephone: (905) 413-3995</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jim Thomas <jaswthomas@sbcglobal.net></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, CFP
<cfp-interest@ucbtest.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">07/26/2012 06:41 PM</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:</font>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [Cfp-interest] D/d double type floating
point suffix</font></table>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>I wasn't on the C committee at the time, but did review
the TR and argued, unsuccessfully, against the FLOAT_CONST_DECIMAL64 pragma.
I don't see the d/D suffix as a mistake/oversight. It's a solution to the
problem of how to write double constants that are protected against reinterpretation
under the pragma. For example, the suffix lets you write a <float.h>
header that doesn't break if the pragma happens to be in effect where the
header is included. The suffix is used in this way in shipping headers.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>For the CFP TS Part 2, it might be reasonable to </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>1. deprecate both the pragma and the suffix, or</font>
<br><font size=3>2. remove both the pragma and the suffix.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>With 2, I think an implementation could continue to support
the pragma and/or suffix as extensions and still be in compliance with
TS Part 2. Is this correct?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>-Jim</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:35 AM, Rajan Bhakta wrote:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi,</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
I talked to Edison regarding the d/D suffix for the double generic type
and he said it went into the Decimal TR by mistake/oversight as a blind
acceptance of Fred's WG14 comment 10904 (the suffix is point 6) without
review. He did say he didn't intend for it to happen after seeing it.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
In essence he said we (IBM) screwed up and would want to rectify the issue
by removing the suffix and wants to have this as a defect report. So I
would like to keep my comments in the TS part 2 regarding removing the
d/D suffix.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Rajan Bhakta<br>
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada<br>
C Compiler Development<br>
Contact: </font><a href=mailto:rbhakta@ca.ibm.com><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>rbhakta@ca.ibm.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">,
Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM<br>
Telephone: (905) 413-3995</font><font size=3>_______________________________________________<br>
Cfp-interest mailing list</font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br>
</u></font><a href="mailto:Cfp-interest@oakapple.net"><font size=3 color=blue><u>Cfp-interest@oakapple.net</u></font></a><font size=3><br>
</font><a href="http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest"><font size=3>http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest</font></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>