Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44098

Re: D>F and S>F second draft

Show all headers | View raw

C G Montgomery wrote:
> Author:
>
> The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate these ambiguous conditions by
> instead specifying that if no floating-point value is precisely equivalent
> to the provided integer the word provides the floating-point value which
> is closest to the integer.
>
> This is the behavior provided by some Standard Forth systems, and is often
> what is most useful for the programmer.

Your repeat the assertion on which your proposal rests but where is the
evidence?

There will be cases where D>F cannot provide a numerically correct result
due to lack of precision.  Occassionally a programmer won't care at the
loss of precision but I wouldn't call this typical or "most useful".  Nor would
I impose it on systems.

It is true most systems behave the way you describe but I suggest it is
done because it is the easiest - not because it is "useful".  ANS currently
entitles systems to choose their response under exceptional conditions
and I see no reason or advantage in changing it.  Quite the reverse.

Bernd has likened those who disagree with your proposal as trolls who
need clubbing.  On the contrary I provide it because Forth deserves
respect.  If a proposal limits the options available to systems with no
demonstrable advantage, then it should properly be rejected.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-11-29 17:19 -0500
  Re: D>F and S>F second draft "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-06 13:02 +1100
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-06 03:28 +0100
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-06 04:01 -0500
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-06 02:27 +0000
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:55 -0800
  RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:18 -0800
    RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:55 -0800
      Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 09:31 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-06 11:48 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:15 -0800
            Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 14:57 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:07 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-12-06 20:04 -0500

csiph-web