From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Kent Dickey  schrieb:   
      
   > This is my point: I don't see a great way to encode the first NaN, which   
   > is why I propose not making that a goal.  You're not getting the first   
   > NaN in any case even if you try to do so in hardware, since the order of   
   > operations is a fragile thing that's hard to control unless you write   
   > assembly code, or the most tedious source code imaginable.   
      
   Using Fortran, parentheses have to be honored.  If you write   
      
    A = (B + C) + (D + E)   
      
   then B + C and D + E  have to be calculated before the total sum.   
   If you write   
      
     A = B + (C + (D + E))   
      
   then you prescribe the order completetely.   
      
   I can imagine source code that is much more tedious than this :-)   
      
   --   
   This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,   
   artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,   
   artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)