Hi Vincent, On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:56:36AM GMT, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2024-08-07 23:19:56 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:56:17PM GMT, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The current "If x is 0" is a bit misleading because "is" is not the > > > equality test, while this condition should apply to both -0 and 0. > > > Replace this condition by "If x is equal to 0". > > > > How does 'is' differ semantically from 'is equal to' in this case? > > "is" designates the value (it is a short for "has the value"). > For instance, in the same man page (with the typo fixed): > "If x is NaN" (saying "is equal to" would be incorrect, because > the equality comparison with NaN is always false). > > That's why the sqrt(3) man page has > > If x is +0 (-0), +0 (-0) is returned. > > and the cbrt(3) man page has > > If x is +0, -0, positive infinity, [...] > > "is equal to" corresponds to the usual equality, as written in > a source code. (IEEE 754-2019 actually uses "equals".) > > For zero, one can also say "If x is ±0" as in the IEEE 754 standard. > The IEEE 754 standard also uses "zero" in the sense "±0" (but it > never uses "0" in this sense when there may be an ambiguity, knowing > that in practice, "0" has the same meaning as "+0"). In a condition, > when it says something like "x = 0", this means that x is either +0 > or -0 because these values compare equal to each other. Hmmm, I see. Thanks! I think "If x is ±0" is the clearest way to say it. I'm not sure if that glyph is available everywhere, though. How about "If x is 0 or -0"? > > So one could also say "If x is zero". > > > I don't think 'is equal to' does anything different to mean also -0. > > Note that the glibc manual in info format says for nextup: > > If X = ‘0’ the function returns the smallest positive subnormal > number in the type of X. > > and for nextdown: > > If X = ‘0’ the function returns the smallest negative subnormal > number in the type of X. > > > > If > > > .I x > > > -is 0, the returned value is the smallest representable positive number > > > -of the corresponding type. > > > +is equal to 0, the returned value is the smallest representable positive > > > +number of the corresponding type. > > > > Please keep semantic newlines. See man-pages(7). > > I suppose that the issue is here "long clauses should be split at > phrase boundaries", so that you would like to avoid a split between > "positive" and "number". Yes. > Perhaps better between "is" and "the". LGTM. > BTW, it seems that this is often not honored, including in new text > (see e.g. commit c86bb39a117fb593f1ff7b7e729d70166d942446 two months > ago, with a split between "undefined" and "behavior"). Hmmm, that's an oversight from my part; sorry. But I would say it's rather not often. That's by far the most repeated issue in incoming patches, and I try to always require contributors to fix them. :) I'll fix that one, with a 'Reported-by:' you. > And should I introduce a newline after the comma, though it is > currently not present? But this will not eliminate the need for > another line break. Sure, thanks! Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
