RE: MS-FO-LC1-102: NaN and distinct-values

• From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 07:55:45 -0700
• To: "Michael Rys" <mrys@microsoft.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB09D18705@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

That's better wording!  Thanks!

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rys
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:33 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: MS-FO-LC1-102: NaN and distinct-values
> 
> 
> Class: Editorial/Technical
> 
> Section 15.1.11: The wording of this is quite contrary to IEEE 754,
> which states: "Every NaN shall compare unordered with everything,
> including itself."  However, based on the semantics and least-surprise
> factor, returning only one NaN is probably the right thing to do.  May
> want to consider rewording text though, such as "Although NaN does not
> compare equal to itself, multiple NaN values are returned only once
for
> the purpose of this function."
> 

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 10:55:53 UTC