Subject: Re: scanf misses NAN and INF (patch to review)
To: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/04/2007 10:45:38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:54:49PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <1hw1cj7.s1lal11ygc4jrMemail@example.com>,
> Emmanuel Dreyfus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Can you give me an example where the patch would not be appropriate?
> There are machines that don't have NaN or Inf like the vax. In that
> case the input would be "inf" or "nan" and g would print a real number.
> The patch is fine for machines with "inf" and "nan". I am not sure
> what the best way is to approach this for machines that don't have
> "inf" or "nan". Perhaps the code should just not match "inf" and "nan"
> for machines that don't have them and behave like it does now.
Well, what do we do now for improperly-formatted numbers? Wouldn't the=20
same thing be appropriate?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----