> From: bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net>
> Limiting the precision to that of the most-precise inexact argument,
> as suggested by Will Clinger and myself at different times, seems
> like a relatively practical thing to do (explanations below).
> However, it would be forbidden by the current suggested wording,
> because it runs against the principle of using a particular inexact
> value (expressible in, say, four words because one of the arguments
> was an inexact with four words of precision) when there are inexact
> values (which are expressible in 1024 words) that are actually
> closer to the mathematically expected result.

- Yes, I was thinking that as most typical implementations implement
  inexacts as C float/doubles, that an exact implementation could be
  viewed possibly as the most precise, albeit not infinite, available
  numerical representation.