<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Updates from today’s session added in <span style="color:red">
red</span>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are the results of our (CFP) paper presentations. Vote totals are (For/Against/Abstain).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Round-trip rounding [N3232] – Integrate into C2Y (21/0/2. Consensus.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Recommendation for printf rounding [N3233] – Integrate into C2Y (20/0/2. Consensus.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Comments of interest:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Seacord: Can you use "should" there or anywhere meaning recommended practice?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> (Answered: I think it’s OK, editor can change if needed.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Bazley: How hard is it to do, and what do current implementations do?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> (Answered: Don’t know, but assuming most do it “right” if any do more digits, and don’t know of any implementations that do it “wrong”.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Niall: If you change how it is printed, won't this break a lot of code?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> (Answered: No, this is more like a bug fix. And it is recommended practice so no one has to do it.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Problematic use of “correctly rounded” [N3242] – Integrate into C2Y (18/0/5. Consensus.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And the ones of interest to us:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Remove imaginary types [N3240] – <span style="color:red">Remove from C2Y (15/2/6. Consensus.); Remove __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ (10/4/9. Consensus.); Fix up paragraphs from the removal (18/1/3. Consensus.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Interesting (to me) points:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Using N3263, Ted Johnson from HP came and said HP-UX is old and not being developed so not a big deal if it is removed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Thoughts of moving parts of Annex G into the main standard that fit there (not IEEE dependent).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Fred mentioned EDG has imaginary types in it’s front end.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"> Reworking I meaning _Complex_I into also allowing an implementation defined complex i. (Ongoing, homework for this week)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Introduce complex literals [N3241] – Add suffixes (3/9/13. No consensus.); Have ‘j’ form too (8/8/9. No consensus.); Only have ‘i’ form (4/10/10. No consensus.); Only have 'i' form and capitals (7/8/9. No consensus.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Interesting (to me) points:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Many don’t like the J suffix.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Many don’t like restricting mixed case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Many don’t like list of suffixes (“making a combinatorial form is better”).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Did not discuss the macros (creal, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">Possible work items for us if we want to pick it up:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> Opinion poll: Make the changes to Annex G to make it stand alone optional support for IEEE complex conformance?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> 14/1/7. Consensus for someone to do something here (CFP?).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> Opinion poll: Make a purely optional annex for _Imaginary type support alone?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> 8/7/7. No clear direction to do this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> Ballman: I would have voted yes if this were for a TS. (Also Jakub said the same thing and possibly others who voted no/abstain).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Regards,<br>
<br>
<b>Rajan Bhakta</b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>