Re: [q-lang-users] Q 7.2 RC 1 issue 1: Nomenclature

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

Albert Graef scripsit:

> No, with "fail" I mean that, e.g., nan=0.0 would be a normal form. In Q, 
> that makes much more sense than returning false in such a case. Either 
> those numbers are incomparable and then the operation should fail; or 
> they _are_ comparable but then the result should make sense (which it 
> doesn't if both nan=0.0 and nan<>0.0 return false because the latter 
> should be the negation of the former).

This argument is compelling.  The IEEE behavior makes sense in the
limited terms of forcing NaNs into the straitjacket of two-valued
logic, but Q can neatly provide a 3-valued true/false/fail system.
This also fits with the way SRFI-77 talks about NaN:

	a real number whose value is so indeterminate that it
	might represent any real number within the closed interval
	[-inf.0,+inf.0].

-- 
Go, and never darken my towels again!           John Cowan
        --Rufus T. Firefly                      http://ccil.org/~cowan