(j3.2006) Interpretation F08/0055

[Malcolm Cohen]

> The answer given to question Q6
>("No.") is at best misleading.

I disagree.

>Question Q6 includes an example that shows a
>sequence of increasing values being written
>and a sequence of values in mixed order being
>written.  The question is is that result the
>intended result, and the answer is no.  That
>is technically correct, but misleading.  The
>example given depends on the scale factor
>being nonzero.

That question is specifically about 1PGw.0, so naturally this is the case.  Are 
you objecting to the question?  Of course there are lots more questions that 
could be asked...

Do you think we should be trying to "fix" more of the "weird output" cases?  Or 
trying to fix none of them?  I guess there is no hurry to decide on this since G 
editing has been broken for at least 7 years and weird forever.

>The edits speak of the "decimal exponent value,"
>without giving a definition of the term.

Yes, this is a mistake.

>A definition of the
>term that works is that the decimal exponent
>value of a number N is FLOOR(LOG10(ABS(N)))+1.

No, that doesn't work, because LOG10 does not accept an INTEGER argument.  And 
it is not required that a processor possesses a floating-point kind which can 
represent every integer value either.

Perhaps you meant to write something like log<sub>10</sub> instead of using 
Fortran notation.

It's probably better to add words something like "corresponding to a mantissa in 
the range 0.1<=m<1".

And I don't think we should be using the mathematical notation for floor (or 
indeed ceiling) either, since many of the readers of the standard will not 
recognise it.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.