About the only change I would even consider is to add:
constant term:<-i> = Complex.new(0,-1);
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:27 AM Timo Paulssen <t...@wakelift.de> wrote:
>
> That sounds like a recipe for even more confusion further down the road;
> now whether you get a -0-i or a 0-i out of your bag depends on which one
> of the two was put in first, and the difference between 0 and -0 surely
> makes a difference in enough cases when doing floating point math that
> it would come up at just the right time to ruin your day :(
>
> On 14/06/2019 00:28, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> > We could potentially give 0e0 and -0e0 the same .WHICH, which would solve
> > the bag issue.
> >
> >> On 13 Jun 2019, at 21:02, Timo Paulssen <t...@wakelift.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, that's what the IEEE prescribes, so all we can really do
> >> is: *shrug*
> >>
> >> On 13/06/2019 21:01, Sean McAfee wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brad Gilbert <b2gi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > (-i).reals
> >>> (-0 -1)
> >>>
> >>> Ah, so it's nothing particular to Complex:
> >>>
> >>>> bag 0e0, -0e0
> >>> bag(-0, 0)
> >>>
> >>> Can't say I'm thrilled to have two distinct zeroes.
> >>>
