Re: Putting features in vs. leaving them out, especially functions
On Wed, May 25, 2011 16:35, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
>
> I expect that 1788 will have the equivalent of clause 9
> in 754-2008. That is, a place where necessary but not
> fundamental functions are listed so that their properties
> may be specified in a standard way but none of the listed
> functions are required for an implementation to be
> considered conforming.
>
> You (collectively) are more qualified to answer that in
> the case of (1-cos x)/x^2 but that is the question before
> you.
I think that only a minimal set should be required but all functions much
used by real users should be recommended.