On 4/9/26 19:18, John Cowan wrote:
> ---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----
>
>
> 1. It is not yet an IEEE standard.
>
> 2. There are no less than seven formats in the draft, with from 1 to 7
> bits of precision (yes, the binary8p7 format can only represent
> integers).  All of them have +inf.0 and -inf.0, but no -0.0 value and
> only a single +nan.0 value. There are also a number of non-IEEE
> formats in use.
>
> I think that before we standardize these as *numeric* vectors, we need
> to wait for more of a shakeout, so I suggest that `f8-storage-class`
> be deleted from SRFI 231.  For now, users can store them in s8vectors
> or u8vectors and do their own conversions.

Well, it's not going to be deleted from SRFI 231 after finalization, but
I suppose we can recommend that f8-storage-class be defined as #f (which
is allowed by SRFI 231).

Brad