On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:28:12PM +0100, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > Hello, > > > > IMHO, no. > > The fact 0 is signed for doubles is really a trick set up in the IEE754 > > standard only for dealing with branch cuts (like the division you present). > > It is not available for other types like int or longs where 0 is not signed > > and special numbers like infinity and NaN and even subnormals do not exist. > > Our fractions are both closer to the mathematical Z set and to the computer > > science int primitives pairs than to double. There is a conversion method > > doubleValue, but it should rather be considered an extension than a core > > feature. > > > > Luc > > > I was initially going to answer along these lines, but refrained to do > so, because I realized that Q is actually closer to R than Z. Indeed, > you cannot define a limit in Z, but you probably can in Q, since Q is > dense in R. So, defining a signed zero as being as signed fraction > with absolute value smaller than 1/Integer.MAX_VALUE might be > meaningful. > > I'm not saying we should do it, but I can see Gilles' point. Gilles, > do you have any practical application in mind ?
Heu, no. I just thought that it would be, hmm... more consistent. ;-) Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
