(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> It's not speculative. I am certain that ceilf was never once mentioned in a
> WG21 proposal (or minutes of WG21 meetings) until https://wg21.link/p0175
> proposed explicitly naming it in the C++ standard for consistency with the
> contents of <math.h> in C99.
Actually ceilf was explicitly mentioned in TR1 (https://wg21.link/n1836), although it was introduced as std::tr1::ceilf then. I don't know why the -f/-l variants became implicit (or ignored) when merging TR1 (except for math special functions) into the standard...
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13) /wg21.link/ p0175
> It's not speculative. I am certain that ceilf was never once mentioned in a
> WG21 proposal (or minutes of WG21 meetings) until https:/
> proposed explicitly naming it in the C++ standard for consistency with the
> contents of <math.h> in C99.
Actually ceilf was explicitly mentioned in TR1 (https:/ /wg21.link/ n1836), although it was introduced as std::tr1::ceilf then. I don't know why the -f/-l variants became implicit (or ignored) when merging TR1 (except for math special functions) into the standard...