<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=utf-8">
<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:10.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
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="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I am in favor of making that change. It can be an optional part of this proposal, or a separate one (I prefer the former).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121">Regards,<br>
<br>
<b>Rajan Bhakta</b></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#212121"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">cfp-interest <cfp-interest-bounces@oakapple.net> on behalf of Damian McGuckin <damianm@esi.com.au><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, April 17, 2025 at 6:04</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">AM<br>
<b>To: </b>CFP Interest <cfp-interest@oakapple.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] [cfp-interest 3442] (no subject)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
Given the proposed change to 7.3.1 where we now talk about return types,, <br>
consider 7.12.1 General (within Mathematics <math.h> which currently says:<br>
<br>
The header <math.h> declares two types and many mathematical<br>
functions and defines several macros. Most synopses specify a<br>
family of functions consisting of a principal function with one or<br>
more double parameters, a double return value, or both; and other<br>
functions with the same name but with f and l suffixes, which are<br>
corresponding functions with float and long double parameters,<br>
return values, or both. 268)<br>
<br>
Should the use of return values change to return types?<br>
<br>
Thanks - Damian<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
cfp-interest mailing list<br>
cfp-interest@oakapple.net<br>
<a href="http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.oakapple.net_mailman_listinfo_cfp-2Dinterest&d=DwICAg&c=BSDicqBQBDjDI9RkVyTcHQ&r=XTIN0AwPKAf2bIKNxlzdeqggAytE5h-JEusWpx9MXwc&m=jKGYNuXfZMXzFNCWpdjiSynx65AU_pEOUit5n0aO_AtGYL5yIIxnbamEwXjt0P3r&s=kB_8ARNSLoh5kS73wwSkjirgMpAYmXgwoUVd_neXGkM&e=</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>