Re: Motion P1788/M0051:IntervalLiteralsText -- discussion period begins
> > A minor change to the text was made by John Pryce:
>
> Those two lines were identical.
I'm sorry. The difference was in the second paragraph of 12.11.2 .
Motion51Oct20.pdf:
The following forms of number literal shall be supported.
Motion51Oct22.pdf:
The following forms of number literal shall be provided.
> There *is* a problem however, which I think I pointed out in the past:
> In 12.11.2 (b), hexadecimal form, it states that the exponent field is
> optional. I don't know about C99, but in 754-2008 it is *required*.
I'm ready to make hexadecimal exponent field *required*.
Does anybody have objections ?
Baker. May we have a 1-2 day pause before the voting ?
-Dima
----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: mhack@xxxxxxx
Кому: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Отправленные: Вторник, 22 Октябрь 2013 г 23:40:07 GMT +04:00 Абу-Даби, Маскат
Тема: Re: Motion P1788/M0051:IntervalLiteralsText -- discussion period begins
Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> A minor change to the text was made by John Pryce:
Those two lines were identical.
Although the two .pdf files were different in binary, they look alike
on paper, at least on quick inspection.
There *is* a problem however, which I think I pointed out in the past:
In 12.11.2 (b), hexadecimal form, it states that the exponent field is
optional. I don't know about C99, but in 754-2008 it is *required*.
Well, atof() does accept hex literals without an exponent, so perhaps
it is ok -- but be careful when mentioning 754-2008 here.
Michel.
---Sent: 2013-10-22 19:34:29 UTC