RE: [F&O] INF, -INF and NaN - literals?

The IEEE spec spells out the lexical forms as well.

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: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:40 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; Colin Paul Adams; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [F&O] INF, -INF and NaN - literals?
> 
> 
> Sure we can. XQuery supports these values in the value spaces 
> of xs:double and xs:float. It's just that writing the 
> constant value is a bit more complex.
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:35 AM
> > To: Michael Rys; Colin Paul Adams; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [F&O] INF, -INF and NaN - literals?
> > 
> > Then we cannot claim our float and double datatypes are 
> IEEE, or XML 
> > Schema, conformant.
> > 
> > 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: Friday, January 14, 2005 3:13 AM
> > > To: Colin Paul Adams; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: [F&O] INF, -INF and NaN - literals?
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a bug in the F&O spec. While you can use INF, 
> -INF and NaN 
> > > in a schema-validated document such as in value="INF", in XQuery, 
> > > you need to use the constructor functions as Michael Kay says.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> > > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Colin Paul Adams
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:23 AM
> > > > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > > > Subject: [F&O] INF, -INF and NaN - literals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 15.4.2.1 Shows an example:
> > > >
> > > > fn:avg((INF, -INF)) returns NaN.
> > > >
> > > > Are INF, -INF and NaN supposed to be literals of type
> > > xs:double, as is
> > > > implied by this example (at least, that's the inference I draw)?
> > > > Because the grammar for literals does not include them.
> > > > Elsewhwere I can only find mention of them as special string
> values
> > > > for the xs:double constructor.
> > > >
> > > > My XPath parser currently parses these expressions as
> > > child::INF etc.
> > > > Clearly I have a problem with the interpretation of the grammar.
> > > > --
> > > > Colin Paul Adams
> > > > Preston Lancashire
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 12:28:33 UTC