[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arithmetic issues
Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> | From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> | Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:22:45 -0700
> | Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> | > I think that an implementation should be allowed to signal an
> | > error under some conditions where an error object is encountered.
> | > Mandating readable written representations for error objects
> | > prevents an implementation from signaling such errors.
> | I think this might be confused. Surely the mandating of a
> | representation would mean "if you print something (rather than
> | signalling an error) you should print it such-and-such a way."
> That still prevents an implementation from displaying information
> about what type of NaN was returned. Such information could be
> helpful to find the call which generated the NaN.
Huh? How does it prevent such? We *could* mandate a readable written
representation for NaNs without manding that printing a NaN should
produce that representation, since it would still be allowed to signal
an error. (And then, once it is signalled, it could print *anything
Moreover, nothing prevents the mandated written representation from
optionally including implementation defined contents, if that should