From: Martin Stromberg 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: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Mar 20, 2000 05:37:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk 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