Moshe Zadka writes: > MAL > Not sure what you mean here: perhaps .isexact() <=> can be > MAL > represented in IEEE ? > > No, I meant "not represented exactly". The real meaning for that (one > that we might or might not promise) is that it's a float. It's a place > where the numeric model takes the easy way out <wink>. Hmm, I like almost everything about your proposal. The above point bothers me slightly. Are you saying (1.0).isexact() == 0? Also, how about long integers? Will they, under your new proposal, be indistinguisable from regular ints? While this has some appeal to it it would be problematic for C extension modules. Finally, although I'm no Schemer, the hierarchy you suggest sounds very Schemish to me - I know they have a similar hierarchy of numeric types with some of these same predicates to test for integrality, rationality, reality, exactness - maybe there is something to be learned by studying the Scheme model?
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