From:	<ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200304261221.h3QCL6Jt003977@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: Yet another try on nan in strto{f,d,ld}
In-Reply-To:	<3EA5B8A9.D78406CD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> "from Richard Dawe at
	Apr 22, 2003 10:48:25 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:21:06 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

How do you do.

According to Richard Dawe:
> Martin Stromberg wrote:
> > Richard said:
> > > You mean the paragraph about the function returning HUGE_VALL and errno ==
> > > ERANGE, when the number is too big, right? Perhaps we should add that
> > > paragraph, since:
> > >
> > > * we may return HUGE_VALL, etc. at some point in the future;
> > > * the standard specifies that we can return HUGE_VALL, etc.;
> > > * and the programmer using the library should be aware that we can return
> > > HUGE_VALL, etc.
> > 
> > We should yes. But not until the code does so (or vice versa), IMHO.
> [snip]
> 
> BTW why don't we check the range?
> 
> Surely we could check for things like the exponent isn't too big?

Because there are only 24 hours a day?


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -