[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Henry,

>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?

.micah

-----Original Message-----
From: ht@i... [mailto:ht@i...]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:54 AM
To: Jeff Rafter
..snip..

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member