Author mark.dickinson
Recipients alex, belopolsky, daniel.urban, mark.dickinson, rhettinger
Date 2011-05-21.19:18:07
SpamBayes Score 2.27394e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1306005488.04.0.890149510076.issue11949@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Table 5.2 referenced above lists 10 operations, four of which (>, <,
> >=, and <=) are given spellings that are identical to the spellings of
> Python comparison operators.

Yep, those are included amongst the "various ad-hoc and traditional names and symbols".  So what?  It's still the case that IEEE 754 gives no requirement (or even recommendation) for how either of 'compareQuietLess' or 'compareSignalingLess' should be spelt in any particular language.

IOW, it's fine to argue that *you* personally would like Python's '<' to be bound to IEEE 754's 'compareSignalingLess' instead of the current effective binding to 'compareQuietLess', but it would be a bit disingenuous to claim that IEEE 754 recommends or requires that.  It doesn't.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-21 19:18:08mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger, belopolsky, alex, daniel.urban
2011-05-21 19:18:08mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <1306005488.04.0.890149510076.issue11949@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-21 19:18:07mark.dickinsonlinkissue11949 messages
2011-05-21 19:18:07mark.dickinsoncreate