[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:21:07 +0200 (CEST) |
From: Alex Shinn <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:51:47 +0900
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Felix
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error
>> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:21:44 +0200
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 02:47:01AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>>>> Felix scripsit:
>>>>
>>>> > * Those who want IEEE behaviour can have it using "fpexpt".
>>>>
>>>> True. However, I tend to expect that the fp* functions will provide
>>>> efficient versions of the regular procedures (because they know their
>>>> arguments are flonums) rather than returning different results.
>>>
>>> +1 on that. Having the fp (or fx, for that matter) procedures behave
>>> differently from the "generic" ones on flonums is unintuitive and seems
>>> to me like trouble in the making.
>>
>> Is this intuition, or are you simply being used to it?
>
> The only intuitive thing is the nipple. After that,
> everything is learned.
Robots.
cheers,
felix
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error, Felix, 2011/07/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error, Moritz Heidkamp, 2011/07/04
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error, Peter Bex, 2011/07/04
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error, John Cowan, 2011/07/04
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] CR: expt should signal error on domain error, Aleksej Saushev, 2011/07/13