[std-interval] interval(NaN)
Gabriel Dos Reis
gdr at integrable-solutions.net
Mon Sep 18 01:14:42 PDT 2006
George Corliss <George.Corliss at marquette.edu> writes:
| Guillaume,
|
| Let me paraphrase to see if I understand. What I hear you saying is that if
| we (the interval community), after due consideration, are unable to decide
| on the best way to handle a situation such as interval(double, NaN), that
| situation should be considered an erroneous program. The way a standard
| specifies "erroneous" is "undefined."
No, that is *a* way -- not the best; many of us in the C++ community
would like to decrease the number of undefined behaviour, NOT increase it.
| I had not thought of "undefined" that way before. I have thought of
| "undefined" as a license for the implementer to do whatever she wants,
| without even the obligation to tell me.
Yes, that is how implementors understand it, and certainly the way the
C and C++ standards spell it out.
| I have considered "undefined" as
| weaker than "implementation-defined."
and you're right.
"undefined behaviour" usually is a sign of lack of consensus, except
that people have agreed to disagree.
-- Gaby
More information about the Std-interval
mailing list