On May 8, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > Some existing widely deployed ARM ECMAScript implementations apparently are > returning 0 as Number.MIN_Value because their (non-conformant) > implementations can't represent the required value. This paragraph has one > specific purpose, it tells such implementations what they need to return > instead and that it isn't 0. > > It isn't the intent of the paragraph to imply that that full 754 binary > 64-bit compliance isn't still required required for Ecma-262 conformance. Why > did you draw that implication? Do you have any wording changes that you think > would make it clearer? Perhaps this paragraph should be a non-normative note? > > Allen
I drew this conclusion from "If an implementation does not support denormalized values", because it somehow implies that you do not have to implement gradual underflow anymore if your hardware does not support it or if it has a faster flush-to-zero option. It could be a non-normative note intended as a hint for implementations that are not intending to be fully conforming to the standard, but then that intention would need to be clear. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
