(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4171) [ukfortran] Urgent: letter ballot on interps

N.M. Maclaren nmm1
Wed Feb 10 03:40:21 EST 2010

On Feb 10 2010, Bill Long wrote:
>Comment for F03/0039 - HYPOT()
>Nick's comments about the IEEE nonconformance of the proposed change
>might be considered for 13.7.69 "HYPOT (X, Y)" in F08
>09-007r3[353:18-27].  The HYPOT defined in Note 14.7 is not really
>claimed to be the official IEEE HYPOT, but rather is a contrivance to
>illustrate the setting and getting of IEEE flags.

Ah!  That confused me.

>would result in a NaN result.  It might also make Fred Tydeman happier
>if the Note pointed out that the example is not an implementation of
>the IEEE HYPOT function (at least it's not a valid one).  I believe
>that Fred (and maybe Nick) would be happy of the name of the function
>were something other than HYPOT, to avoid confusion with the IEEE
>HYPOT function.

It would assuredly be less confusing.

On the F2008 point, I don't approve of IEEE's inconsistent approach to
NaNs, but this is one of the less problematic cases, and there needs to
be very strong reason to be incompatible with its explicit wording.


More information about the J3 mailing list