IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> Thu, 26 September 2013 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C933421E80AB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rfgmAnT91T2 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA5D11E8118 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1VPHHK-0002zO-F3; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:31:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:31:10 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130926193110.GA8186@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <6D5CFCAD-5B75-4246-BE42-D42E4D35C344@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] -0.0
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:31:31 -0000

R S scripsit:

> I meant that I don't see why it's in the draft at all. I propose
> deleting this paragraph, since I don't believe it is correct.

An implementation written in C cannot be counted on to either produce
or preserve sign on zero, at least not if it uses sscanf/sprintf,
since they are not required to be IEEE-compliant.  Indeed, few
languages defined by spec (as opposed to by a unique or predominant
implementation) require IEEE compliance.

> Most implementations can be relied upon to preserve signed zeros.

Evidence for this statement is lacking.

-- 
Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money.  cowan@ccil.org
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email