🚀 go-pugleaf

>"If the scaled value is in the range of representable values (for its
>type) the result is either the nearest representable value, or the
>larger or smaller representable value immediately adjacent to the
>nearest representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner."
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does anyone else think this word choice is strange?  I can understand
dealing with values outside the domain of exactly representable numbers
in this way -- let the compiler round up, down or to nearest as it sees
fit -- but if the target value is exactly representable, surely that
representation's use should be mandatory.

If the committee had a specific counter rationale I'd like to know what
it is.  If this is just imprecise wording, an interpretation might be
in order.