From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-16 10:44:35
Geoffrey Irving wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:18:08PM -0700, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Jeff Garland wrote:
>>>> A program which produces an undefined result is "broke"
>>> I guess all of 'math' is broken then too? The only way to deal with
>>> singularities in math is to effectively 'bail-out' -- say, well
>>> don't do that.
>> That's how math works - I think C++ should work the same way.
> Sorry for the short rant:
No apologies necesssary - that's what we do here.
> Saying that 1/0 means bail out is "how math works" is missing the
> The real number line, plus infinities, plus NaN, is one of the
> simplest extensions of the real numbers which is closed under the
> basic arithmetic operators. The idea of adding positive and negative
> infinities to the
> real line is hundreds of years old. Arguing that 1/0 should crash
> because that's what happens in "math" is the same as arguing that
> 2*max_int should crash because that's what happens in math...unless
> you have modulo arithmetic.
True - I would argue that as well
> As for the original topic, I very much like the proposal to have +-inf
> and NaN as the only special values.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk