Mark S. Miller wrote:
In both cases, it would seem that new numeric types must still be added
by the language's providers rather than the language's users. This is
the tragic constraint that none of the present proposals have been able
to escape. I would much rather see us work on that
Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-0 and 0 are not the same given floating point number. 1/-0 vs. 1/
0 and Math.atan2(-0,0) vs. 0,0 are but two examples.
Yes, I understand their operational difference. Whether
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anybody care to mark up what they would like to see the following
look like?
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/09/12/estest.html
Shipt it!
:-)
(Not in ES3.1,
2008/9/17 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If that is the case then 1.5m / 10.0 != 1.5 / 10.0, and thus it seems
wrong for 1.5m and 1.5 to be '==='.
0/-0 != 0/0. Does it thus seem wrong that -0 === 0?
Just so that I'm clear what you point is, It is worth noting that 42/0
!= 42/0, yet
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is a tenable position that 1.5m === 1.5000m based on the
cohort concept, since performing the same operation on both will give
answers that are in the same cohort equivalence class. But 1.5 / 10.0 !=
1.5m
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/17 Mark S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If that is the case then 1.5m / 10.0 != 1.5 / 10.0, and thus it seems
wrong for 1.5m and 1.5 to be '==='.
0/-0 != 0/0. Does it thus seem wrong that -0 === 0?
Just so that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Mike Cowlishaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are -0 and 0 in the same cohort?
In IEEE 754, no:
*2.1.10 cohort: *The set of all floating-point representations that
represent a given
floating-point number in a given floating-point format. In this context
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-0 and 0 are not the same given floating point number. 1/-0 vs. 1/0 and
Math.atan2(-0,0) vs. 0,0 are but two examples.
Yes, I understand their operational difference. Whether that difference
means they are not the same
On Sep 18, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-0 and 0 are not the same given floating point number. 1/-0 vs.
1/0 and Math.atan2(-0,0) vs. 0,0 are but two examples.
Yes, I understand their operational difference.
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Long long ago I actually had read that document carefully, and I had also
looked at I think the [Brown 1981] which it cites. (But the doc has no
bibliography. Anyone have a pointer?) My memory of the theory of floating
point is that the numbers are exact but the
On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 18, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-0 and 0 are not the same given
not be 'number'.
I disagree with #1 and thus #3.
Here is what I wrote:
Without use decimal, typeof 1.1m must not be number to preserve
this same invariant [that a === b = typeof a == typeof b a
== b].
Otherwise (without use decimal) 1.5m == 1.5
but 1.1m != 1.1, so without making typeof 1.5m
On Sep 17, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Anybody care to mark up what they would like to see the following
look like?
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/09/12/estest.html
Shipt it!
(Not in ES3.1, certainly in Firefox 3.1 if we can... :-)
/be
On Sep 17, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
0/-0 != 0/0. Does it thus seem wrong that -0 === 0?
Well, yes, actually it does seem wrong to me, but we all accept
that particular wrongness. This is just more of the same.
A lot more.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
One exception
14 matches
Mail list logo
