Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:284 comp.lang.c:11993
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!littlei!omepd!radix!jimv
From: jimv@radix (Jim Valerio)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Commentary for third public review of X3J11 C
Keywords: X3J11 C, floating-point
Message-ID: <59@radix>
Date: 22 Aug 88 01:08:32 GMT
References: <64919@sun.uucp> <8358@smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: jimv@radix.UUCP (Jim Valerio)
Organization: Radix MicroSystems, Beaverton
Lines: 35

In article <8358@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
responds to David Hough's article (announcing his pending comments to X3J11).
Doug explains that X3J11's intention to get the proposed standard wrapped up
ASAP, and suggests that anything other than editorial changes are very likely
to be rejected.

Based on the replies I saw to the previous review cycle, I'm concerned that
even editorial comments are too likely to be rejected.  Consider the
the Committee's choice not to replace "mantissa" and "value part" with
"significand".  This editing change would bring the standard in conformance
with both IEEE 754/854 and ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986 (the IEEE Standard
Glossary of Mathematics of Computing Terminology).

I am also concerned that substantial mistakes are being made in the area of
floating-point support, despite the good critique provided by David Hough
in the previous review cycle.

I found the responses to David Hough's comments in the last review cycle were
often depressingly mechanical, unbalanced, and to my mind, unreasoned.  I
don't understand how <float.h>, demonstably inadequate, arguably wrong, and
lacking prior art, can be accepted.  Compare this to the decision not to
standardize hypot(), a function which exists on both BSD and SysV systems,
a function the Committee called an "invention of limited utility".  Oddly
enough, the complementary atan2() function is standardized; the Committee
explains atan2() "can be used for purposes other than conversion to polar
coordinates", an argument that actually seems to apply more correctly to
hypot().  I could go on, but Hough's letter and the Committee's responses
say it all much better.

I hope that Doug, and the Committee as a whole, will very carefully read
and consider David Hough's comments in this coming review, and perhaps
supply better considered and self-consistent responses than those that
were provided in the previous review cycle.
--
Jim Valerio	jimv%radix@omepd.intel.com, {verdix,omepd}!radix!jimv