Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:51:07 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: libm sources from cyberoptics
In-Reply-To:	<375FC833.9F9C49D2@cyberoptics.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990610184822.20445B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Eric Rudd wrote:

> The only other functions I can think of where a distinction is made
> between +0. and -0. are the log functions.  Currently log(+0.) returns
> -INF with a range error, and log(-0.) returns NaN with a domain error.
> I wonder if I should treat log(-0.) the same as log(+0.).

I think returning different results for 0 and -0 might lead to confusion
in the case of log as well, and therefore we should treat 0 and -0
identically.  I do agree that the case of sqrt is much more clear-cut in
this respect. 

- Raw text -