On 02/18/2015 08:51 AM, François Laupretre wrote: >> De : Pádraic Brady [mailto:padraic.br...@gmail.com] >> >> Careful, it helps not to call folk "radicals" if you intend to pursue >> a compromise with them ;). > > Sorry, english is not my native language, and 'radical' may be offensive. > > I was just looking for a word for people who consider providing two modes is > a pre-requisite to any discussion. > >> I wouldn't necessarily mind int->float - it's lossless assuming one way only. > > It's lossless but it kills the 'strict' position. It can be claimed, one hand > on the heart, this will be the only exception but, as use cases and side > effects accumulate, we all know it will finish as a bunch of exceptions to a > no-more strict mode, adding confusion where it is not needed. I guess the > next one would be (int -> bool), and the rest would follow.
We need to keep in mind that int->float isn't technically lossless. We have a 53-bit IEEE754 mantissa to take account for here, so it is only lossless for values below 36028797018963966 or so. -Rasmus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
