Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Decimal Floating Point Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 07:09:01 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 42 Message-ID: <865yv7uruq.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <2bff66f3-391b-4785-9c43-1f056106d6a1n@googlegroups.com> <993af611-3442-412b-8fc8-2e1d081f0d36n@googlegroups.com> <878s04fdm9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0c4f5fcc89e490bd97a4bc974fdeaef8"; logging-data="5373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KAIExNKUqK5L8tMiOV88kOKAfHuHKSGA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZJOOeKXFKEg6o2IR3plh2mJbX+k= sha1:hOCP++uotW/krTGzsn3XL9L3wV8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:162733 Keith Thompson writes: > Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes: > >> In comp.lang.c, James Kuyper wrote: >> >>> On 9/10/21 11:44 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> I believe Fabian was referring to the IEEE standard, not the C >>>> standard. >>> >>> Yes, but because they are not in the C standard, they're not C >>> standard types, which means that the best place to ask questions >>> about them is not this newsgroup. >> >> I'm reading this in comp.lang.c and I look at the Newsgroups header >> and don't see a crosspost to comp.std.c so I'm wondering why you >> believe "not C Standard ... not this newsgroup". > > Because the general (though not universal) consensus is that > comp.lang.c is for discussion of the C language as defined by > the standard, I believe that is a minority view. First off the newsgroup (albeit with a different name) predates the existence of any ISO or ANSI standard. Second, and probably more important, most of the discussion that actually takes place is about using the C language rather than about the language per se. Even if a program is written in "standard C", it can reasonably lead to questions outside the ISO standard proper, because C allows extensions, and because tools (compilers, linkers, etc) come into play when trying to write C code, and I think also some other causes. Furthermore I think there is at least tacit agreement among most participants here that these kinds of questions are appropriate to be brought up in the newsgroup, even if better answers might (and I emphasize might) be available in another venue. What comp.lang.c is definitely NOT for is subjects that are primarily concerned with languages other than C. Almost everyone (other than trolls) adheres to this principle, with a small number of repeat offender exceptions.