Re: [pure-lang-users] math.pure

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 01:42 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> Eddie Rucker wrote:

> NB: It would be possible to implement this for the bigint operations as 
> these are implemented as calls into the runtime, but I'd rather like 
> these to work consistently with the machine int operations. Also, this 
> is one of the cases where I think it's not really worth the effort, 
> because integer division by 0 almost invariably indicates a serious 
> program bug. Finally, note that you can still define x div 0 any way you 
> want as long as you're doing symbolic calculations (i.e., x is not an 
> integer).

My judgment sucks as of late, but I say err on the side of consistency.
If 1 div 0 is an error then 1L div 0L should be an error

> I'm about to remove the definition of pow on double, it just duplicates 
> the functionality of the ^ operator anyway.

Yes, there is no reason for duplicated functionality.

e.r.