From: Kbwms AT aol DOT com
Message-ID: <97d9ca33.36a4e9e9@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:24:09 EST
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: moshier AT mediaone DOT net, robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Bug when printing long doubles
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Subj:	 Re: Bug when printing long doubles
To:	dj AT delorie DOT com 

Dear DJ Delorie,

On 01-19-99 at 13:23:27 EST you wrote:
>
> > I see nothing wrong with printing an item of poorly formed bits as NaN.
> > In the final analysis, that's what it is, isn't it?  When a print loop
> > inadvertently wades through ASCII or binary data, what's to be done?
> > In my view, *some* analysis must be done by the person presumably in
> > charge.
>
> Invalid strings are printed as "<null>".

Yes, but what I had in mind was a renegade print loop that thought it
was looking at binary long double data.

> I also suspect that there are more NaN patterns than just the one that
> is "the" NaN pattern.  I wouldn't have a problem with "NaN" being
> printed for *all* invalid patterns (except known infinities and
> printable denormals, of course).


I concur.

K.B. Williams