[RFC] PR libstdc++/9548 vs DR 231 (Ready)

[Paolo Carlini]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

>I think the current behavior is wrong, sadly. I believe the arguments
>advanced in this DR are well-formed. We should match "C" behavior.
>
>Since precision is 6 by default, this behavior will only be triggered by
>those who explicitly set precision to zero. I think that's reasonable.
>
Yes, in fact this is not that common...

>>Do we all agree that implementing DR 231 is the best thing to do?
>>
>I really think this should be done.
>
Fine. As I wrote in my previous message, it's easy after all.

... and in fact we'll end up _removing_ code from 
__num_base::_S_format_float:
the resolution of DR 231 is really  neat.

Paolo.