True. Forget that idea then :-)
> On 14 Jun 2019, at 13:27, 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. >>>>
