Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3EA5B8A9.D78406CD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:48:25 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Yet another try on nan in strto{f,d,ld}
References: <200304221512 DOT RAA06423 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> Richard said:
> > ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:
> > > 1. Note that the final paragraph in Return value for strtold is
> > > missing, in case you notice. It's because that isn't implemented.
> > > That's how it was.
> >
> > 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?

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]