Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!ncifcrf!lhc!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: What is permissable with HUGE_VAL
Message-ID: <13387@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 23 Jul 90 18:28:39 GMT
References: <1990Jul14.194550.14850@dinorah.wustl.edu> <1990Jul19.204933.18891@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 7

In article <1990Jul19.204933.18891@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>i.e.  there is no reason (other than the obvious sillyness) that
>an implementation can't define HUGE_VAL as 5.2.

Yes, HUGE_VAL is not required to be the largest representable value.
However, it should be defined as close to that as is feasible,
simply as a matter of quality of implementation.