empty intervals
Per Bothner
(29 Jul 2015 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(29 Jul 2015 17:12 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(29 Jul 2015 17:16 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(29 Jul 2015 20:21 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Per Bothner
(29 Jul 2015 20:56 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(29 Jul 2015 22:02 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Per Bothner
(29 Jul 2015 23:36 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(01 Aug 2015 03:52 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(01 Aug 2015 03:57 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(31 Jul 2015 20:49 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Per Bothner
(31 Jul 2015 22:14 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals John Cowan (31 Jul 2015 23:57 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(31 Jul 2015 23:37 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(01 Aug 2015 02:00 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(29 Jul 2015 21:11 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
Bradley Lucier
(29 Jul 2015 22:27 UTC)
|
Re: empty intervals
John Cowan
(01 Aug 2015 04:20 UTC)
|
Per Bothner scripsit: > (1) This case > (= (interval-lower-bound I i) (interval-upper-bound I i)) > This needs to be allowed, no ifs or buts, and the specification > needs to say so. I agree. That allows arrays to be empty. Only very C-ish languages prohibit empty arrays, and not for any very good reason (gcc allows them). > (2) This case: > (= (interval-dimension I) 0) > I don't feel as strongly about, though it would be allowed in any > implementation I control. I think there is no good reason to not > allow it, and good reasons (consistency, generality) to allow it. I think it should be required to be true for consistency and generality. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Do what you will / this Life's a Fiction And is made up of / Contradiction. --William Blake