der Mouse wrote:
>>Having looked a bit more, I'd say yes. Also, the encode functions
>>don't code NaNs the way DEC is saying either.
> 
>>I wonder if they have chosen another representation of NaN on a VAX?
>>They seem to code a NaN the same way they code an INF, which don't
>>even exist as a representation on the VAX.
> 
> Neither do NaNs.  VAXen don't have NaNs.  The closest things the VAX
> has to IEEE NaNs are reserved operands, which are mostly rather like
> IEEE signaling NaNs.  The VAX does not have anything like IEEE quiet
> NaNs or infinities.  (I think it doesn't have denormalized numbers,
> either, but I'm less sure of that.)

Hmm, you might be right. How does IEEE units behave when an operation on 
a NaN is performed then?

	Johnny