Re: Motion P1788/M0006.04_Level_2_Multi-format NO
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/7/09 8:46 AM, "Vincent Lefevre" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2009-09-07 09:46:46 +0200, Frédéric Goualard wrote:
>> My vote is NO because the associated position paper definitely
>> assumes---even if peripherally---the implicit (e.g., [-oo, -oo] and
>> [+oo, +oo] have no meaning, which should make them NaIs, whatever
>> that object is) or explicit existence of NaIs, a concept I am not in
>> favour of.
>
> This is not what the paper says. "No meaning" currently implies
> undefined behavior, not the existence of some form of NaI.
> Having to deal with such meaningless representations could
> imply performance penalties.
Indeed. Anyway, I wonder how such an undefined behavior would be handled
practically by programming languages that lack exception facilities.
External flags (such as the infamous C errno) do not seem that good an
option. Should we really put this burden on implementors (the Standard
being language agnostic) while identifying [-oo,-oo] and [+oo, +oo] to
the empty set appears to have so few drawbacks (correct me on that one:
I have seen many discussions in the Motion 7 thread on that topic and
may have overlooked some definitive argument against it)?
F.
- --
Frédéric Goualard LINA - UMR CNRS 6241
Tel.: +33 2 51 12 58 38 Univ. of Nantes - Ecole des Mines de Nantes
Fax.: +33 2 51 12 58 12 2, rue de la Houssinière - BP 92208
http://goualard.frederic.free.fr/ F-44322 NANTES CEDEX 3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFKpRcPEJvxJgN8HkgRAnTWAJ47Ukt0FiDuC5ym4VRYQi2YPiNQNQCdGPyh
BjoV6rSQDQFcJClVLzORcYg=
=pA3C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----