(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3558) [ukfortran] Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations

[John Reid]

------- Forwarded message -------

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:29:53 +0900, Jim Xia <jimxia at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> NO vote on F03/0100
> The second edit says that if <w> is zero, then the output field for NaN
> values is 'NaN'.  This seems to be too restrictive.  Processors should be
> given options for additional information in the output, e.g. a processor
> can
> provide additional information to specify whether a NaN is quiet NaN or
> signaling NaN.

Malcolm says: This argument is without merit.

w==0 is "minimal field width", and explicitly prohibits inclusion of
optional information (such as optional plus signs and leading zeroes).

If w==3 produces "NaN" and not "***", then w==0 producing anything
longer than 3 is, by definition, NOT minimal.

I quote from the standard

   "On output, with ... F editing, the specified value of the field
    width <w> may be zero.  In such case, the processor selects
    the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    a field filled with asterisks."
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jim's suggestion is contradicted both by the letter and the
spirit of the minimal width editing feature in the standard.

Cheers,
-- 
................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp)