From: Christophe R. <cs...@ca...> - 2017-11-02 13:15:50
|
Hi, stassats via Sbcl-commits <sbc...@li...> writes: > Transform (complex float)<=>rational comparisons. > > Use the same transforms as for float<=>rational. > (frob <) > (frob >) > - (frob =)) > + (frob =) > + (frob < t) > + (frob > t) > + (frob = t)) I'm pretty sure the < and > cases should be an error always for complex arguments: there's no ordering defined on the complex plane. Does it make sense to have a transform to convert to a more specialised way of generating an error? Cheers, Christophe |
From: Stas B. <sta...@gm...> - 2017-11-02 18:49:16
|
Right. I'll remove the <> cases, better errors is a separate question On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:16 PM Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > Hi, > > stassats via Sbcl-commits <sbc...@li...> writes: > > > Transform (complex float)<=>rational comparisons. > > > > Use the same transforms as for float<=>rational. > > > (frob <) > > (frob >) > > - (frob =)) > > + (frob =) > > + (frob < t) > > + (frob > t) > > + (frob = t)) > > I'm pretty sure the < and > cases should be an error always for complex > arguments: there's no ordering defined on the complex plane. Does it > make sense to have a transform to convert to a more specialised way of > generating an error? > > Cheers, > > Christophe > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel > |
From: 73budden . <bud...@gm...> - 2017-11-03 17:10:24
|
Can this transform cause an error to fire at compile time? 2017-11-02 21:48 GMT+03:00, Stas Boukarev <sta...@gm...>: > Right. I'll remove the <> cases, better errors is a separate question > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:16 PM Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> stassats via Sbcl-commits <sbc...@li...> writes: >> >> > Transform (complex float)<=>rational comparisons. >> > >> > Use the same transforms as for float<=>rational. >> >> > (frob <) >> > (frob >) >> > - (frob =)) >> > + (frob =) >> > + (frob < t) >> > + (frob > t) >> > + (frob = t)) >> >> I'm pretty sure the < and > cases should be an error always for complex >> arguments: there's no ordering defined on the complex plane. Does it >> make sense to have a transform to convert to a more specialised way of >> generating an error? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Christophe >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Sbcl-devel mailing list >> Sbc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel >> > |