From:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200003201618.RAA27315@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: Unnormals???
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:18:09 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000320172540.26722B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Mar 20, 2000 05:37:00 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Eli said:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> > 'negative' is free for us to define, in the context of NaNs. 
> 
> Yes.  I suggest to define it as a "NaN", just like its brethren with
> the sign bit reset.

So you, Eli, are saying that if we have a NaN we should print "nan"
even if the "+" flag is present?


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -