Re: [pure-lang-users] Yet another quirk with MinGW

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Eddie Rucker scripsit:

> (1) Is sqrt supposed to be defined for nan and inf? ln, sin, cos, etc,
> are.

The hardware says that sqrt(inf) is inf and sqrt(nan) is nan, which
is what you expect given that inf*inf = inf and nan*nan = nan.
In IEEE floats, the less tampering with the hardware the better.

        There was a young fellow of Trinity
        Who solved the square root of infinity,
            But while counting the digits
            Was seized by the fidgets
        Dropped maths and took up divinity.

No wonder!

> (2) ceil, floor, round, and frac for complex numbers are undefined and
> IMHO should stay that way.

Agreed.  Implementing them would imply that there is a natural ordering
on the complex numbers corresponding to <, and there obviously isn't.

> (3) Shouldn't polar (x<:y) => x<:y ?
> (4) Shouldn't rect (x+:y) => x+:y ?

Looks good to me.


-- 
Andrew Watt on Microsoft:                       John Cowan
Never in the field of human computing           co...@cc...
has so much been paid by so many                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)