Date:	Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:28:54 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Unnormals???
In-Reply-To:	<200003210709.IAA03083@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000322102807.17945F-100000@is>
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

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:

> The copysign functions produce a value with the magnitude of x and the
> sign of y. They produce a NaN (with the sign of y) if x is a NaN."
> 
> This means the standard do think that NaNs have a sign (however
> misguided that is)

No, they only think a NaN *might* have a sign.  If there's no notion
of a sign of a NaN, the copying a sign to it does nothing.

> hence we really do need to print the "-" of a negative NaN. Period.

I don't see how this argument changes anything.

I really think that it's up to us to decide what we think is
appropriate in this case.  The standard clearly doesn't provide enough
guidance on this issue.  Even this last argument seems to be
far-fetched (why should the standard hide such an important info in
the description of an obscure function?).

- Raw text -