[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: reading NaNs



Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 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
>>>> explicit?
>>>
>>> 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? 

You are still pretending that "IEEE real" is a datatype instead of a
set of rules for computations.

> Which of them would the syntax like "3.14" resolve to?

Neither, because "IEEE real" is not a datatype.

Thomas