<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">I think this sort of organization into smaller focused proposals will be very help for understanding and moving forward. See specific comments below about the suggested organization.<div><br></div><div>- Jim Thomas<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 15, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm@esi.com.au> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div><br>As suggested by the meeting minutes of 14th August,<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Rajan: More smaller proposals will be easier to sell to WG14<br></blockquote><br>All, how about there are 7 smaller proposals, 3 Technical, 4 Editorial<br><br>Technical<br><br>a)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>F.10.5<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- correct mistake - an implied -INF is NOT odd integral<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- keep old style wording for this for the moment<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Where is it implied that -inf is odd integral? Please identify the specific subclause(s) and bullets (F.10.5 has no content other than subclauses).<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br>b)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>G.4.3<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- make domain of csinh(x + i INF) consistent with ccosh()/ctanh()<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- keep old style wording for this for the moment<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>The csinh bullet for this case says “for all positive finite x”, which covers all finite nonzero x because of conjugacy and oddness. This is the same x-domain as (explicitly stated) in the corresponding bullet for ccosh and ctanh. If so, this an editorial inconsistency rather than a technical one?</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br>c)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>F.10.1<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Make a sole argument of NaN returning a NaN the normative case<br></div></div></blockquote><br>I can’t tell what this means. How would it be different from current F.10.1 #14 which says "Functions with a NaN argument return a NaN result and raise no floating-point exception, except where explicitly stated otherwise."</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- this is consistent with Annex G<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- no implementation changes<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- only affects F.10.4.7 which means that we can remove parentheses<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>What is technically incorrect in the current specification?</div><div><br></div><div>Note that in G.4.2.1 in the bullet </div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div>cacos(+/-inf + I NaN) returns NaN +/- i inf (where the sign of the imaginary part of the result is unspecified).</div><div><br></div></blockquote>The parentheses need to be removed. Unlike for other cases mentioning that the sign of a real or imaginary part is unspecified, here the parenthesized information is not implied by the general specification in G.4.1 "Unless otherwise specified, where the symbol +/- occurs in both an argument and the result, the result has the same sign as the argument.” The parenthesized information in the bullet above is intended to be normative specification. This is a (minor but) technical issue.<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br>Editorial (makes Annex F and Annex G vastly more readable)<br><br>d) <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>F.10.[2-3] - for trigonometric and hyperbolic routines<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* use new syntax, more consistent, no extraneous commas, etc<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* tweak any qualifying domain to<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - ensure full inequality, e.g. 0 < x < INF instead of finite x > 0<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - tighten the mathematical wording in a few cases<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - prefix every use of n with the word integer<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - Use the word integral (not 'integer') with a floating point y (or x)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I suggest making the last two into two separate issues.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* Split a union of qualifying domains into individual items (generally)<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - where NaN being separate is clearer<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> - where INF being separate is clearer<br><br>e) <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>F.10.[4-9] - Repeat (c)<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* use new syntax as for (c)<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* sort out qualifying domains as for (c)<br></div></div></blockquote><br>You mean (d), right?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br>f)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>F.10.1 and G.4.1 - ensure within these two (introductory) sections<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- the wording of similar paragraphs is the same between the two<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- the ordering of similar paragraphs is consistent between the two<br><br>g)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>G.4.[2-5]<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- use new syntax<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- use mathematical domains (like F.10.[2-9])<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- enhance clarity with the use of +/- 0 and unspecified signs<br><br>Thanks - Damian<br><br>Pacific Engineering Systems International ..... 20D Grose St, Glebe NSW 2037<br>Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here<br>Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer<br>_______________________________________________<br>Cfp-interest mailing list<br>Cfp-interest@oakapple.net<br>http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>