Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:04:44 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug when printing long doubles
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990119183214.1969E-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990120090404.2569C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> To give my personal view of this: subnormals really should not give any
> exceptional behaviour in printf(). We should strive to ensure that
> printf() of such a number does produce a valid answer, if possible.
> Printing NaN would be a lie, simply put. 

Well, then, what's your vote about what it *should* print?

Current suggestions include: "NaN" (to which you obviously object),
"<invalid>", "Special", and "Unnormal".