Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mstan!amull
From: amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Questions about NCEG
Message-ID: <1017@s6.Morgan.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 90 15:00:51 GMT
References: <3094@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1990May29.193451.6533@twinsun.com> <15576@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY
Lines: 13

In article <15576@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
| >"If the scaled value is in the range of representable values (for its
| >type) the result is either the nearest representable value, or the
| >larger or smaller representable value immediately adjacent to the
| >nearest representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner."
| Does anyone else think this word choice is strange?  I can understand

It looks to me like the standard (bless its soul) is making provision
for stable rounding, (see also banker's rounding). See Knuth for
details.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt