--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:54:49PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <1hw1cj7.s1lal11ygc4jrM%manu@netbsd.org>,
> Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@netbsd.org> wrote:
> >Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
> >
> >Can you give me an example where the patch would not be appropriate?
>=20
> 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?

Take care,

Bill

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGE+RCWz+3JHUci9cRAu8BAJ4x8g7flxhhAkmWb7mU3Gqo5jDCOQCbBym8
gGwwd5SXzVTSP/YuO4EN02o=
=a3gg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--