[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: reading NaNs
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> To the contrary, I think requesting *any* model should be explicit.
>>> Can you help me out here by explaining *why* it is so painful to be
>> Because I see no sane way of *switching* models. They shouldn't be
>> changed, they should be added (adding new numeric types, extending
>> existing operations - not replacing).
> Who spoke of switching models?
So how would you support IEEE and non-IEEE inexact reals at the same
time? Which of them would the syntax like "3.14" resolve to?
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk