Edison RC3

[Nils Anders Danielsson]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006, Robert Dockins <robdockins at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> So you think it would be clearer if I just ignored bottom as well?

It would be imprecise instead of wrong. :)

Another option is to go for some sort of approximate semantics which
still includes bottoms. You could for instance assume that bottom =
const bottom, and state your results in that context. Verifying the
results would still mean a lot of work, though.

By the way, does your library have a QuickCheck test suite? In that
case it is often not too hard to test properties involving bottoms. I
have a library which may be of help:
  http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~nad/software/ChasingBottoms/docs/

-- 
/NAD