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

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

John Cowan wrote:
> 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:

All right, it's already in cvs. I'll try to fix the remaining issues you 
brought up tonight. With the exception of "over" vs. "%" vs. ..., of 
course, looks like we haven't yet reached a consensus about this that 
everyone is happy with (or can at least live with).

Cheers,
Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag