[std-interval] Comments on the Interval Standard Proposal

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr at integrable-solutions.net
Mon Oct 2 15:02:43 PDT 2006

Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond at ens-lyon.fr> writes:

| Le lundi 02 octobre 2006 à 10:34 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
| > | Now we are back to these two questions. What behavior do we mandate for
| > | constructors on infinities and NaNs? Do we leave some undefinedness so
| > | that libraries can do assumptions on the finiteness of the
| > | floating-point values for mixed-type operations and perform fast
| > | computations? (If not, the behavior would obviously be mandated to be
| > | the same as with constructors.)
| > 
| > As I said earlier, I would like to see the number of undefined
| > behaviour close to zero.  Consequently, either you specify the
| > operations to deal explicitly with NaNs, or you ban NaN inputs and
| > therfore make sure that no interval is constructed with NaNs.
| What do you mean by "ban NaN inputs"? 

when an interval object is (successfully) constructed, it cannot be
with NaNs values.   

Pick your poison; I'm just stating what I would not like to see in the
library and I'm objecting to.

-- Gaby

More information about the Std-interval mailing list