> > If "THE RANGE" is everything between DBL_MIN and DBL_MAX, then
> > negative results or zeor are not defined. The only possible
> > interpretation of "the range" is -DBL_MAX ... DBL_MAX.
> I take it you mean every real number between -DBL_MAX and DBL_MAX.
Quote:> In this case, no underflow can occur and my implementation would be in
My statement was intentionally provocative, because I think that the
wording in the standard is somewhat unclear. I think that the *intent*
was to let the implementation do what it likes in the case of
underflow. But I don't think that the standard says this clearly, and
the most na?ve interpretation of "range" (the one I gave above) would
suggest that an implementation must treat underflow as 0 (since that is
the nearest representation available).
Quote:> To the moderators: IMHO, this is still very much on-topic, being about
> the correct interpretation of this certain phrase in the standard!
Of course it is on topic. Independantly of the standard, general
discussions about behavior that is possible, or that you might encounter
somewhere, is on topic. About the only way this would slip off topic is
if you start talking about an implementation specific way to modify this
behavior, and even then, if you word it correctly... "Most
implementations will have some way of ... For example, under Windows,
you can ..."
Conseils en informatique oriente objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
[ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]