[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Suggestion of annex D

To: stds-754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Suggestion of annex D
From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:09:32 +0200
In-reply-to: <465AEFD6.3080808@xxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-754>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO STDS-754>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-754-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-754-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-754-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Mail-followup-to: stds-754@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <46570F7A.9010703@xxxxxxxxxxx> <465AE279.2030103@xxxxxxxxxxx> <465AEFD6.3080808@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: stds-754@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.15-vl-r17232 (2007-05-20)

On 2007-05-28 17:05:58 +0200, Christoph Quirin Lauter wrote:

I am okay with that. We (Florent and I) thought to have treated the 
question as follows: +0 = 0 = -0 and for functions for which f(0) is some 
finite c, the operation f(-0) returns c. If c is 0, then f(-0) is -0.


This is not a good rule. Consider the function f(x) = -x for instance.

-- 
Vincent LefÃ¨vre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

References:
- Suggestion of annex D
  - From: Florent de Dinechin
- Re: Suggestion of annex D
  - From: Peter Henderson
- Re: Suggestion of annex D
  - From: Christoph Quirin Lauter

Prev by Date: Re: FW: Transcendental function tables: comments welcome!
Next by Date: RE: Transcendental function tables: comments welcome!
Previous by thread: Re: Suggestion of annex D
Next by thread: Re: Suggestion of annex D
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread