[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
Re: draft
I noted some of Jim's comments in the draft so they will be picked up during
draft review. As for others:
> 3.1, bottom of p20: Why are extended formats allowed to have more
> entities?
I think this is a leftover from 754:
An implementation may also reserve some bit strings for purposes beyond the scope of this standard. When such a reserved bit string occurs as an operand the result is not specified by this standard.
> 4.1.1: Replace "numbers bracketing the infinitely precise result" with
> "numbers bracketing an unrepresentable infinitely precise result". Why
> is it OK to delete "nearest"?
"bracketing" implies "nearest" I think. This change might have been made while
I was gone though.
> 5.12, second paragraph: Based on Table 0, +0 and -0 should be in
> separate cohorts. Nothing special need be said.
That conclusion isn't obvious to me. But I made a note of it so we won't
overlook it tomorrow.
> 6.2, second sentence: Aren't signaling NaNs "entities" instead of
> "representations"?
According to Table 0, NaN is an entity, and NaN[s] are representations.