Le mardi 12 avril 2016 à 20:21 -0700, Anonymous a écrit : > Those are good points, although I always kind of wondered why Float > gets Inf while Int doesn't, I guess there's no way to have Inf belong > to 2 distinct concrete types. The problem is that native integers have no way of representing infinite values, contrary to floating point. They can only store actual values. (But you can use floating point formats to store integer data if you need Inf.)
Regards > > > > > Have the Julia developers considered the effects of setting > > > Base.min()=Inf and Base.max()=-Inf. This is common in real > > > analysis since it plays nice with set theory, i.e. > > > > > It only plays nicely with sets of real numbers. What about sets of > > other types that have a total ordering? e.g. strings? > > > > Also, one of the general principles guiding the design of the Julia > > standard library is to provide idioms that don't cause types to > > change arbitrarily underneath the user; this principle is critical > > to being able to use the standard library in high-performance code > > (since type stability is critical to compiler optimization). For > > example min(1,2) == 1 (an Int), min(1) == 1 (an Int), but then > > min() = Inf (floating-point)? > >
