2 ms·
> whereas you earlier said "you should always use some other condition like |x-y| < epsilon, and NOT x == y” Good job on that strawman by picking only half the
by jules 12y ago
> whereas you earlier said "you should always use some other condition like |x-y| < epsilon, and NOT x == y”
Good job on that strawman by picking only half the sentence and out of context.
> I’m not the one who “came with this argument”
I don't care who originally came up with it, you are the one who brought this into the discussion, and then you pull a 180 "Why are you worried about this?".
Anyway, the mistakes made in IEEE floating point are nothing that programming language designers can't fix. Hopefully future languages will make the sensible decision to let == compare floats exactly, and stick the IEEE == deep inside some library somewhere as ieeeFloatingPointComparisonThatIsVirtuallyNeverUsed(x,y).
- haberman 12y agoIt is really unfortunate the tone you have chosen for this thread. You raise interesting questions, but your argumentative and uncharitable tone overshadows your content and sours the reader on your perspective. Your certainty about what you perceive as unambiguous faults in the IEEE standard is not justified given that your experience on the matter is much less than the person you are so rudely criticizing.
- jules 12y agoYou're right I shouldn't have used that tone. On the other hand, my points still stand. Taking quotes out of context to create false contradictions does not make for a very kosher discussion either. However, unlike with floating point multiplication two negatives don't make a positive, so I hereby apologize for my tone.