On 2008 Jul 16, at 18:48, Jon Lang wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Principle of least surprise:
Suppose sqrt(1) returns any(1, -1):
if sqrt($x) < 0.5 { do something }
I can see the big, fat WTF written in the face of programmer who
tries
to debug that code, and doesn't know about junctions. It j
Mark Biggar wrote:
> Let's worry about getting principal values, branch cuts and handling signed
> zeros correct before dealing with the interaction of junctions and
> multi-valued complex functions.
Indeed.
> BTW, two good references on this that we might want to plagiarizer.I mean
> borr
It seems like my smiley went completely whoosh...
Larry
Moritz Lenz wrote:
> If the programmer errs on what he thinks is in a variable, it'll always
> be a bug.
Yes; but some bugs are easier to make, and harder to catch, than others.
> Principle of least surprise:
>
> Suppose sqrt(1) returns any(1, -1):
> if sqrt($x) < 0.5 { do something }
>
> I can s
Let's worry about getting principal values, branch cuts and handling signed
zeros correct before dealing with the interaction of junctions and multi-valued
complex functions.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is in a variable, it'll always
be a bug.
>>> and won't want to jump through the hurdles involved in picking '1' out
>>> of 'any(1, -1)'.
>>
>> 1 and -1 aren't just separated by a complex plane, they are really
>> distinct numbers
, -1)'.
>
> 1 and -1 aren't just separated by a complex plane, they are really
> distinct numbers
True enough. I fail to see how that invalidates my point, though: if
you're going to mess with multiple complex planes, why wouldn't you
also address the issue of distinct num
og(-1i) returned 0- 1.5708i, while 0 + 3/2*1i was expected).
>> :
>> : Should we standardize on one complex plane (for example -pi <= $c.angle
>> : < pi like Complex.angle does)? Or simply fix the test to be agnostic to
>> : complex planes?
>>
>> Standardizing on
+ 3/2*1i was expected).
> :
> : Should we standardize on one complex plane (for example -pi <= $c.angle
> : < pi like Complex.angle does)? Or simply fix the test to be agnostic to
> : complex planes?
>
> Standardizing on one complex plane is the normal solution, though
> this
standardize on one complex plane (for example -pi <= $c.angle
: < pi like Complex.angle does)? Or simply fix the test to be agnostic to
: complex planes?
Standardizing on one complex plane is the normal solution, though
this being Perl 6, there's probably a better solution using infinite
Junc
i like Complex.angle does)? Or simply fix the test to be agnostic to
complex planes?
Cheers,
Moritz
--
Moritz Lenz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
11 matches
Mail list logo
