Re: Constructors motion 30 Version 2: small amendment
On 2012-02-07 04:26:01 -0800, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> I understand there is a certain danger to things like
> num2interval(3.1). Still, known exact constants like
> num2interval(2) are common enough & necessary. So I
> would keep it.
Why not writing nums2interval(2,2)? I don't see num2interval
as useful, except if one wants to gain a few characters.
> P.S. - While num2interval() takes a floating-point
> number as input I'm sure that text2interval() can
> be made safe by defining the output to be
> [roundDown(text2num(text)),roundUp(text2num(text))].
I don't think this makes sense. What is text2num supposed to
give? If it is a Level2 numeric value (e.g. floating-point),
then roundDown and roundUp will not have any effect on it.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)