The new version seems less clear to me. Could it be misread as only applying if the value is positive? s/of/indicating a/ ?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Joseph D. Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I plan to push with a slightly different wording. Rather than > > ... but with a guaranteed positive sign bit: > > using > > ...but with a guaranteed zero sign bit of a positive value: > > I think the latter is clearer. > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > On 8/22/2016 11:41 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > >> Hi Joe, >> >> This doc-only patch appears reasonable to me. Approved. >> >> Brian >> >> On Aug 20, 2016, at 11:55 AM, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com <mailto: >> joe.da...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >> Please review the doc-only patch below to address >>> >>> JDK-8164524: Correct inconsistencies in floating-point abs spec >>> >>> In brief, Martin noted in JDK-8164199 that a close reading of the >>> specification of the Math and StrictMath floating-point abs methods reveals >>> some inconsistencies in the text of the specification versus the >>> operational semantics of the sample code in term of NaN handling. >>> >>> To resolve this, the sample code is slightly modified and demoted to >>> informative rather than normative text. >>> >>> The core of the edit is changing >>> >>> Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff & Float.floatToIntBits(a)) >>> >>> to >>> >>> Float.intBitsToFloat(0x7fffffff & Float.floatToRawIntBits(a)) >>> >>> that is the "raw" floating-point => integral conversion rather than the >>> "cooked" one which has tighter behavioral requirements around different NaN >>> values, analogous changes for the double cases. >>> >> >> >
