Mere moments ago, quoth I:
>> Hex format will be of the form +1.0e2p+5. The integer part will
>> always be 0 or 1. The exponent will be with a p instead of an e like
>> in base 10 formats.
> This is some strange definition of "hex" with which I was previously
> unfamiliar.
>
> It also contradicts itself, by saying "a p instead of an e" while the
> example contains both. (And isn't a very good example, lacking actual
> hex digits.)
It later occurred to me that the "e" could be intended as a hex digit,
thus "1.0e2 with exponent +5".
This still makes it a poor example, though. It might perhaps be
intended as an example of a vexing parse, but in that case it shouldn't
be the *only* example (and perhaps should be elsewhere).
(Also, FWIW, gcc fails to parse that with the leading +. And I couldn't
even find any online calculators that understand this format.)
