Repair to floating point enumerations?
droundy at darcs.net
Thu Oct 16 17:37:07 EDT 2008
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:31:50PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Christopher Lane Hinson wrote:
>> I agree with David, we should be using multiplication, not addition.
>> However, I think that under the law of least surprise, we should
>> require that for all a,b,z:
>> all (\x -> x >= a && x < z || x <= a && x > z) [a,b..z].
> so that [0,0.1..0.3] doesn't include the terminating value that's a
> little more than the literal 0.3?
We could do what octave appears to do, which is to set anything within
the fudge factor (but greater than the upper bound) equal to the upper
bound. That seems like a reasonable option to me.
More information about the Libraries