Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com>: > Eric> APL faced this problem twenty-five years ago. I like its > Eric> solution; a `fuzz' variable defining the > Eric> close-enough-for-equality range. > > I used to like APL's approach, but I've changed my mind. > > Part of the reason is that there are some places where unfuzzed > comparison is essential, such as sorting. Another part is that > fuzzy comparison destroys substitutability: If a==b, it is > not always true that f(a)==f(b). > > Much as I like APL, I'd rather use Scheme's numeric model. Good points...but the fuzz variable could default to zero. It didn't in APL, which I always thought a mistake. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4