[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: dyer@eagle.sharebase.com*Subject*: bounded, infinite ranges?*From*: Stavros Macrakis <macrakis@osf.org>*Date*: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:57:56 -0400*Cc*: info-dylan@cambridge.apple.com*In-reply-to*: Scot Dyer's message of Tue, 20 Oct 92 08:44:47 PDT <9210201544.AA01330@eagle.sharebase.com>*Sender*: macrakis@osf.org

...My reason: a range is over floats, yes? Therefore no enumerative approach would terminate (any range has an infinite number of elements), even if one was provided. Huh? Floats are not reals -- after all, they're represented finitely. As for the meaning of IEEE infinity, it is not really infinity either: it stands for all numbers too large to represent in a given floating type. These values that sit outside the system, "top" and "bottom" values are usually very important to a program. IMHO, it was unfortunate that they were left out of the Dylan language spec. I agree. Dylan appears to use #f as a substitute for a void value in some cases, e.g. while, until, bind with no forms. This, and the fact that ANY non-#f value is true, seem to be residual Lispisms. Note that adding void to the possible returns of a function increases function-return overhead, since of course you have to find some place for the necessary bits.... (If you do it by some control convention, there is still some overhead somewhere.) -s

**Follow-Ups**:**bounded, infinite ranges?***From:*Stavros Macrakis <macrakis@osf.org>

**References**:**Re: bounded, infinite ranges?***From:*dyer@eagle.sharebase.com (Scot Dyer)

- Prev by Date:
**Re: contractual programming** - Next by Date:
**Re: small integers** - Previous by thread:
**Re: bounded, infinite ranges?** - Next by thread:
**bounded, infinite ranges?** - Index(es):