I meant that it should be removed from SRFI-132bis.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 7:41 PM Bradley Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> 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