Lists Home |
Date Index |
>Right -- the point is the erratum _removed_ the text which used to say
>that NaN was superbig.
Does that mean that the non-pattern approach to excluding NaN:
>>> maxInclusive of INF
>>> minInclusive of -INF
should actually NOT work in conforming processors?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:54 AM
To: Jeff Rafter