Paul Schlie <schlie_at_comcast.net> writes:
> might it be worth while considering further defining an exact 0 and
> it's corresponding reciprocal Inf
Exact 0 has no reciprocal.
Considering the reciprocal of zero as a value makes sense only when
the zero is not exact, i.e. when the reciprocal of the true number
which would have been there if it has not been rounded to zero might
exist.
> (fl= -0.0 0.0 +0.0) => #t
> (fl< -0.0 0.0 +0.0) => #t
Please don't break established IEEE floating point semantics.
> or alternatively, designate -0.0 and +0.0 as being equivalent to smallest
> correspondingly signed sub-normal values, and 0.0 as being true 0; thereby
> (/ 0.0) may be trapped without needing to define new a new sNaN value;
Please don't break established IEEE floating point semantics.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ qrczak_at_knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Received on Sun Oct 08 2006 - 14:05:35 UTC