HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:

That seems a bit ugly though. Another way would be to define ± as
simple half-open Range and then overload comparison:

## Advertising

multi sub infix:<==>(Num $x,Range $r) {
$x == any($r.minmax);
}

This is strange. Having 1 == 1..3 and 3 == 1..3 as true is
not what I expect. I think for consistency with lists and
arrays a range should numify to the length of the list it
represents. That is, we have 'a'..'z' == 26 and 4..6 == 3.
Thinking of string ranges, how would infix ± treat these?
'm' ± 3 === 'j'..'p' seems reasonable albeit not overly
useful. The overload infix:<±>:(Str,Ratio) will hardly work.
BTW, here is a correct implementation of relative error
range creation:
multi infix:<±> (Num $x, Ratio $r --> Range of Num)
{
if $x == 0
{
# range instead of plain 0 to comply with sig
return 0..0;
}
elsif $x < 0
{
return $x * (1 + $r) ..^ $x * (1 - $r);
}
else
{
return $x * (1 - $r) ..^ $x * (1 + $r);
}
}
The interesting thing is that 0 comes out as a special number
that is exact as far as relative error goes. Note that it can't
be subsumed by the other cases because that would produce 0..^0
which fails for 0 ~~ 0..^0 since that means 0 <= 0 < 0 which
is false.
Regards, TSa.
--
"The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan