https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/2225
> On 23 Mar 2020, at 17:14, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: > > I’m always impressed with the quality of answers that come out of these > discussions - inevitably I’m reminded that dispatching off the right parties > is ultimately where the power lies (when you cheat - it always seems to end > up with a gotcha). > > Thanks guys. > > Tim > >> On 23 Mar 2020, at 15:15, James Foster <smallt...@jgfoster.net> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>> >>> Both are excellent suggestions. >>> >>> We have to think a bit about the consequences. >>> >>> Still, both would not solve the problem of what to return when the >>> collection is empty. >> >> Zero? >> >>> >>>> On 23 Mar 2020, at 15:47, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 23.03.20 um 14:45 schrieb James Foster: >>>> >>>>>> On Mar 23, 2020, at 6:06 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What you found out now is that the clever trick used to avoid picking an >>>>>> additive identity (picking an element, counting it twice and then >>>>>> subtracting it) leads to a loss of precision when floating point numbers >>>>>> are involved. This is an important issue. >>>>> If this approach is to be preserved, then each class should have an >>>>> additive identity so instead of adding and subtracting an object, we let >>>>> the object tell us its zero. >>>> >>>> Or define a singleton class "Zero" with a + method that returns the other >>>> operand, and use that Zero object for the additive identity. >>>> >>>> Konrad. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
