16 ms·
The authors covers this at the end: [1] The author has a dislike of the notion that 1/0 = 0 in a programming language. The author identifies this as a personal
by rzwitserloot 8y ago
The authors covers this at the end:
[1] The author has a dislike of the notion that 1/0 = 0 in a programming language. The author identifies this as a personal preference; I'm sure that preference is based on falsiable notions, but the author doesn't elaborate. The author _DOES_ elaborate their motivation for writing the post: The post debunks the notion that 1/0 = 0 is 'bad math'.
[2] Pony chose 1/0 = 0 because the language of Pony is set up to enforce the coder to complete all functions; if you go with the strict definition of division, which is an operation which has no definition if the second operand is 0, it's not complete anymore. I agree with your sentiment; this feels like the wrong answer, but it's definitely not as simple as just saying: Why don't the pony folks redefine things such that dividing by 0 raises some sort of error condition?
- jejones3141 8y agoDoes Pony have some analogous dodge for logarithms and square roots of reals, or for the gamma function?